Download More ebooks [PDF]. Format PDF ebook download PDF KINDLE.

Full download ebooks at ebookmass.com

Women's Food Matters: Stirring the Pot

1st Edition Vicki A. Swinbank

For dowload this book click BUTTON or LINK below

https://ebookmass.com/product/womens-food-matters-
stirring-the-pot-1st-edition-vicki-a-swinbank/

OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWLOAD NOW

Download More ebooks from https://ebookmass.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The Asian Hot Pot Cookbook : Family-Friendly One Pot

Meals Amy Kimoto-Kahn

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-asian-hot-pot-cookbook-family-
friendly-one-pot-meals-amy-kimoto-kahn/

Carnival and Power: Play and Politics in a Crown Colony

1st Edition Vicki Ann Cremona

https://ebookmass.com/product/carnival-and-power-play-and-
politics-in-a-crown-colony-1st-edition-vicki-ann-cremona/

The Halal Food Handbook Abd El-Rahim

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-halal-food-handbook-abd-el-
rahim/

Why Privacy Matters 1st Edition Neil Richards

https://ebookmass.com/product/why-privacy-matters-1st-edition-
neil-richards/
Why Privacy Matters Neil Richards

https://ebookmass.com/product/why-privacy-matters-neil-richards/

One Wok, One Pot Kwoklyn Wan

https://ebookmass.com/product/one-wok-one-pot-kwoklyn-wan/

Nanotechnology in the Agri-Food Industry: Food

Packaging 1st Edition Alexandru Grumezescu

https://ebookmass.com/product/nanotechnology-in-the-agri-food-
industry-food-packaging-1st-edition-alexandru-grumezescu/

Why Surrealism Matters (Why X Matters Series)

Polizzotti

https://ebookmass.com/product/why-surrealism-matters-why-x-
matters-series-polizzotti/

Sex Matters: Essays in Gender-Critical Philosophy Holly

Lawford-Smith

https://ebookmass.com/product/sex-matters-essays-in-gender-
critical-philosophy-holly-lawford-smith/
Women’s Food
Matters
Stirring the Pot

Vicki A. Swinbank
 Women’s Food Matters

“This groundbreaking interdisciplinary feminist study offers a new perspective

on how, and why, women’s food matters throughout history and in our contem-
porary world. As one of the first studies to combine a focus on food produc-
tion, processing and cooking, on food cultures and food systems, Swinbank
puts women’s knowledge and creativity at center stage in the reproduction and
transformation of culture and agriculture. Women’s Food Matters provides a theo-
retically rich contribution that is jargon-free, making it an appropriate choice for
classes at any level, as well as for the general reader. Destined to ‘stir the pot’ of
contemporary food studies.”
—David E. Sutton, Professor of Anthropology at Southern Illinois University

“Women’s Food Matters provides a comprehensive and overarching historical and

cross-cultural view of women’s food-work and the important role women have
played in shaping the food landscape from production through consumption.
Drawing from examples around the world, Swinbank illustrates how women’s
food knowledge and practices must be considered in addressing some of the
most pressing problems facing the food system today.”
—Deborah Harris, Associate Professor of Sociology at Texas State University, San
Marcos, Texas

“Radical feminism has just taken its long-awaited seat at the food studies table.
In Women’s Food Matters, Vicki Swinbank reminds us that women’s inter-
generational food knowledge – its production, preparation and consumption
- is at the heart of most food cultures. In her original radical feminist analysis of
women’s role in various food systems throughout history, Swinbank powerfully
sets out the erosion of women’s knowledge by patriarchal and capitalist systems
that have contributed to everything from taking credit for women’s recipes in
contemporary culinary culture to industrialised farming and genetically-modified
crops. Women’s Food Matters is consistently engaging, informative and persua-
sively argued; both taking us back to the wonderful memories of being in grand-
ma’s kitchen, and into the diverse and widely-politicised world of the global food
system.”
—Natalie Jovanovski, Lecturer and DECRA Research Fellow, The University of
Melbourne, Australia
 Vicki A. Swinbank

Women’s Food
Matters
Stirring the Pot
Vicki A. Swinbank
Northcote, VIC, Australia

ISBN 978-3-030-70395-0 ISBN 978-3-030-70396-7 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70396-7

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2021
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc.
in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such
names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for
general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and informa-
tion in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither
the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

Cover credit: imageBROKER/Alamy Stock Photo

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 In memory of my mother
whose love of cooking lives on in me
 Acknowledgements

This book is a culmination of my two lifelong passions: food issues and

cooking, and feminism. There are several people I would like to acknowl-
edge without whose support and interest this book might not have seen
the light of day.
I am indebted to Natalie Jovanovski for her encouragement and
enthusiasm throughout this project, especially in the early stages, which
strengthened my belief in the importance of my book. I would also like to
thank Sue Leigh for her insightful and wise comments from reading some
early drafts. My thanks go to Helen Chambers for her constant interest
and helpful advice about the publishing process. My friends in the United
Kingdom, Elaine Hutton and Lynne Harne followed the progress of the
book from afar and were supportive from the start. I also appreciate the
interest of people, both known and unknown, with whom I have talked
about this project, and who said that they were looking forward to reading
the book.
Above all, I am deeply grateful to Kathy Chambers for her invaluable
technical support throughout the project as well as her editing assistance
in the final stages; it would not have been possible without her. I am
also grateful for her love, support and forbearance during the sometimes
stressful writing process.

vii
viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Finally, I wish to thank my editors at Palgrave Macmillan, firstly, Amelia

Derkatsch in London and more recently, Nina Guttapalle in New York,
who were always helpful and prompt with answers to my questions, as
well as the rest of the team at Palgrave and at Springer Nature.
 Contents

1 Introduction 1
References 7
2 A Feminist History of Cooking: From Hunter-Gatherer
to Peasant Cooking 11
An Alternative History of the Development of Cooking: Man
the Hunter vs Woman the Gatherer 12
‘Writers Have Hardly Noticed’: Women’s Invisibility
in Writings About Food History 16
Cooking and the ‘Mating’ Hypothesis 18
‘Crude and Indigestible’: The Denigration of Women’s
Rural Cooking 21
‘Inspired Improvisation’: The Rich Tradition of Female
Domestic Cooking 25
References 30
3 Culinary Hierarchy: From Peasant Cooking to ‘Haute
Cuisine’ 33
Cuisine as an Expression of Class 35
‘National Cuisines’ vs Regional Cuisine 38
Cooking and the Public/Private Split 40
‘How Can I Make It My Own?’: Male Individualism vs
Female Collectivism/Community 43

ix
x CONTENTS

Molecular Gastronomy as an Expression of the Masculinist

Approach to Cooking 45
Men Are no Longer Satisfied with ‘Simply’ Being Chefs 49
References 53
4 The Sexual Politics of Domestic Cooking 55
Food and Male Control 57
Men’s Involvement in Domestic Cooking 60
Cookbooks for Men 63
The Rise of the ‘Manly’ Cook 67
The Rise of the Television (Male) Celebrity Chef
and the Creation of the Masculine Domestic Cook 69
The Male Takeover of the Domestic Kitchen 74
Foodie Culture 75
References 81
5 Cultural Memory and Female Intergenerational
Culinary Culture 85
‘A Thread of Continuous Knowledge’: The Intergenerational
Transmission of Female Culinary and Food Knowledge 86
‘More Precious Than Jewels’: Cookbooks in the Lives of Women 89
‘Ties to Homelands Left or Lost’: Food and Migrant Identity 94
‘Dishes that Remind Them of Home’: Refugees and Culinary
Cultural Memory 97
‘Relying on Ready-to-Eat Meals’: The Loss of Culinary Skills 100
‘A Form of Diversion and Escapism’: Cooking as a ‘Spectator
Sport’ and the Decline of Home Cooking 108
‘The Epitome of Patriarchal Oppression’: Feminism
and Cooking 111
References 119
6 A History of the Industrialisation of Food and Its
Impact on Women 123
The Enclosure of the Commons and the Decline of British
Food Culture 124
The Impact of the Enclosures on Rural Women 129
The Scientific Revolution and the Development of Industrial
Agriculture as a By-Product of War 140
Adulteration of Food 143
 CONTENTS xi

Industrialised Animal Production 145

References 149
7 Threats and Solutions to Biodiversity, Cultural
Culinary Diversity and Food Sovereignty 151
The Neoliberal Food Regime 152
Threats to Women’s Role as Custodians of Biodiversity 154
The Threat of Climate Change to Biodiversity and Cultural
Diversity 157
Global ‘Supermarketisation’ 160
The Homogenisation of Food Cultures 162
The Nutrition Transition, Nutritionism and Biofortification 165
Land Grabbing 171
Food Security, Food Sovereignty and Agroecology 174
References 181
8 Women Feed the World: Biodiversity and Culinary
Diversity/Food Security and Food Sovereignty 187
The Importance of Women’s Homegardens 190
‘Women Have Always Gathered Wild Plants’: Women
as Food-Gatherers 194
‘What Do You Mean by Weeds?’: Culinary Applications
of Wild Plants 196
‘Agriculture Begins with Seeds and Ends on the Plate’:
Women as Seed Custodians 199
Post-harvest Processing and Preservation 203
Women’s Work with Animals 206
References 215
9 Conclusion 219
References 223

Index 225
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

In recent years there has been a veritable explosion in books dealing with
food issues, ranging from the history of cooking to a critique of the
industrialised food system. There is, however, relatively little that deals
with food from a feminist perspective, with much of the existing litera-
ture focusing on women’s problematic relationship with food, especially
eating disorders and body image (Bordo 2004; Jovanovski 2017; Manton
1999) and women’s ambivalent relationship with cooking (DeVault 1991;
Cairns and Johnston 2010). Whilst this work by feminist academics has
made an invaluable contribution to the literature on women’s often
conflicted relationship to food, my aim in this book is to examine the
more positive and empowering aspects of women’s involvement in food
production, preparation and cooking.
My analysis in this book is from a radical feminist standpoint, that is a
politics that “places women and women’s experiences at the centre, names
the oppression of women, and involves a holistic view of the world, an
analysis which probes every facet of existence for women” (Rowland and
Klein 1996, 13). Radical feminist theory is concerned about the material
reality of women’s lives, recognising that the ‘personal is political’—in
other words, that women’s personal experiences are a consequence and
reflection of the power imbalances in hetero-patriarchal society resulting
from a gendered hierarchy based on sexual difference. This is exacerbated
and complicated by class, race and ethnicity. Radical feminists argue that

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

Switzerland AG 2021
V. A. Swinbank, Women’s Food Matters,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70396-7_1
2 V. A. SWINBANK

the system of male domination and female subordination that gendered

power relations are based upon is not a result of biology or essentialism,
but is a cultural construction, used to justify the socially constructed
gendered hierarchical system of masculinity and femininity.
Significantly, although there is a considerable body of literature on
the history of cooking, it is overwhelmingly androcentric in its analysis,
with men seen as the central players in the development of the uniquely
human activity of cooking (Wrangham 2009; Standage 2009; Revel 1982;
Fernandez-Armesto 2004). Even those texts written by women tend
to concentrate on the cooking of famous male chefs, such as Escoffier
(Trubek 2000). There is also a very limited body of literature on women’s
historical role as food providers, the most notable being in the classic
book ‘Woman the Gatherer’ (Dahlberg 1981).
In contrast to this, in Chapter 2, I apply a feminist analysis to the
origins of cooking, arguing that it was almost certainly early female
hominids who developed the first technology to do with cooking
(Zhilman 1981; Ehrenberg 1989; Stanley 1981). Drawing on this and
writings by Hawkes et al. (2002) and Gremillion (2011), I describe how
women, in their historical role of provisioning and preparing food have
been instrumental in the development of cooking. I apply a feminist
critique of the prevailing male-centred history of cooking, which credits
‘man the hunter’ with the discovery of cooking with fire (Wrangham
2009; Standage 2009). Furthermore, I challenge the assumption of many,
mostly male, historians (e.g. Revel 1982; Dickie 2008) that the cooking
of the common people/peasantry (in other words, women’s domestic
cooking) was unimaginative, dull and monotonous. I contend that, on
the contrary, traditional, female domestic cooking has been hugely inno-
vative, imaginative and varied. Moreover, in their need to make the best
use of what is seasonally and locally available, women’s domestic cooking
has, over many centuries, if not millennia, formed the basis of the world’s
myriad regional cuisines.
Chapter 3 explores why men’s cooking—especially professional or
‘haute cuisine’—has always been awarded a higher status than women’s
domestic cooking. This is despite the fact that the former depends on the
latter for its existence. I analyse how the elevation of men’s cooking to a
higher status has involved the denial of such dependence and indeed even
a denigration of women’s cooking (Revel 1982). The evolution of cuisines
is often considered to be from the top down—that is, the influence of
‘high’ or ‘haute’ cuisine on everyday women’s domestic cooking. I argue,
 1 INTRODUCTION 3

in my feminist analysis of ‘culinary hierarchy’(Swinbank 2002), that the

main influence on cooking cultures is in fact the other way around—that
is, ‘haute’ cuisine’s unacknowledged appropriation of and dependence
on women’s traditional domestic cooking. The masculinist assertion that
men are superior cooks to women continues today, perhaps even more
so as cooking has, in many Western societies, become viewed as a trendy
lifestyle activity taken up as a leisure activity by many men. I examine this
in the following chapter.
Domestic cooking and the associated domestic kitchen have tradition-
ally been a female sphere, one of the few areas where women legitimately
have been able to exercise agency and creativity. However, with the rise of
male celebrity chef culture in recent years, cooking (at least on an occa-
sional basis) has now become a trendy activity for many men. Whilst this
has been welcomed by some women, men’s ‘takeover’ of the domestic
kitchen has at times made it a contested space, adding to a sense of supe-
riority of some men, vis-à-vis women, with regard to cooking. This is
an issue I examine in Chapter 4, with reference to geography academic
Angela Meah (2013), whose valuable work on this issue I draw on and
extend.
This chapter explores the contemporary trend for men to become
increasingly involved in the kitchen and the challenges that this presents
for women. I conclude with a look at the impact of male celebrity chefs
on cooking, and examine how they claim to have discovered various
approaches to cooking (e.g. foraging, peasant-style food, slow cooking)
that have in fact been used for centuries by women. This appropria-
tion of women’s food knowledge connects back to the main themes of
the previous two chapters—namely the claim that men developed the
uniquely human activity of cooking. The masculinist claim that men are
innately better cooks than women is not only a falsehood, but also a
source of great irritation to many women. The elderly mother-in-law of
an acquaintance of mine expressed this frustration by exclaiming “Can’t
they even leave us that!”.
It may be puzzling that, given women’s central role in most aspects
to do with food, not only cooking, but also, in much of the world,
growing and preserving it, there has been relatively little interest in this,
including (with some exceptions) by feminists. This is in part due to
second-wave feminists viewing women’s role in domestic cooking as a
prime example of their subordination and exploitation, and therefore, to
4 V. A. SWINBANK

be sidelined or even dispensed with in the interests of women’s libera-

tion. As I argue in Chapter 5, this is a case of “throwing the baby out
with the bathwater”, and that, instead it is very much in the interests of
feminism to acknowledge and celebrate the ingenuity and creativity of
women’s domestic cooking. This has in fact created the myriad regional
cuisines of the world, and been instrumental in the development of the
world’s culinary cultures. Another important reason for this oversight is
that, especially in modern Western culture, women’s unpaid work in the
domestic sphere is taken for granted and so rendered unimportant and
invisible, an issue that feminists have analysed in depth (Waring 1988;
Delphy and Leonard 1992; Mies et al. 1988).
The intergenerational transfer of food knowledge is fundamental
to the development and maintenance of food cultures. Over many
centuries/millennia, in their role as food producers, providers and
preparers, women have played a central role in this. However, once again,
this has been largely overlooked or ignored. In Chapter 5, I delve into the
largely unexplored world of the intergenerational transfer of food knowl-
edge between women. This female intergenerational food knowledge and
the associated culinary cultural memory which forms the basis of the
world’s innumerable regional food cultures, has been, and in many places
still is traditionally transmitted orally and by observation. Similarly, the
female intergenerational handing on of handwritten cookbooks, as culi-
nary heirlooms, are treasured for their emotional significance, in addition
to being highly valued for their wealth of recipes and food knowledge. Far
from being a trivial matter, this intergenerational transfer of women’s food
knowledge, both oral and written, is vital to the development and main-
tenance of the world’s regional food cultures. Although food cultures
are now beginning to be recognised by the United Nations as a vital
aspect of human cultural heritage, women’s role in this remains generally
unacknowledged.
This chapter also includes a critique of feminist arguments that reject
cooking as a site of female subordination. Whilst recognising that women
often have an ambivalent attitude to cooking, given that it is generally not
optional with regard to feeding families, I contend that to see it solely in
terms of exploitation, and therefore to be abandoned, is a mistake. This is
because in doing so women unwittingly reject a crucial part of women’s
contribution to human culture and civilisation—in short, a proud female
heritage. It also allows men to claim this heritage for themselves, as I have
analysed in previous chapters.
 1 INTRODUCTION 5

In this book, I use the term ‘masculinist’ to describe how in male

supremacist culture the gendered conditioning of men into masculinity
results in attitudes of dominance and a sense of entitlement. The conse-
quences of this are the cause both of the cultural subordination and
oppression of women as well as of an exploitative, extractive attitude to
nature. This is accentuated by capitalism, itself a product of masculinist
mindset. Chapter 6 describes in particular how the development of
capitalist agriculture has wrought untold damage on the environment,
including being a major cause of climate change. Much has been written
about capitalism and its origins, most famously of course by Karl Marx;
however, there is little that deals with the historical effect of capitalism
on women, and even less—with some important exceptions (Humphries
1990; Sharpe 2016)—dealing with the impact on women’s traditional
role in subsistence food production and preparation. In this chapter, I
examine in some detail, starting with the enclosure of the commons in
England, the destructive effects on women of the development of capi-
talist industrial food systems. The impact on women’s traditional role as
food producers, and the accompanying loss of related skills and status
were fundamentally altered/destroyed by the development of the capi-
talist industrial food system, a process that started in the West, specifically
historically in England, but which now threatens much of the world.
Both industrial food systems (exemplified by monocultures, genetically
modified crops and factory farming of animals) and ‘haute cuisine’ at the
other end of the food spectrum (exemplified by molecular gastronomy)
are products of a masculinist mindset.
Chapter 6 starts with an analysis of the damaging effects of the enclo-
sure of the commons and the Industrial Revolution on British (more
specifically English) food culture. The enclosures, which preceded and
accompanied the industrialisation of Britain, dispossessed the peasantry of
their land and livelihoods, turning them into an urban proletariat work-
force for the newly emerging industries. The loss of land from which to
grow, gather and feed themselves had a devastating effect on the dispos-
sessed rural population and a previously vibrant food culture. Crucially
these developments resulted in the loss of women’s food knowledge and
skills, as well as having negative consequences for their economic status.
In the second part of the chapter, I look at the impact of the Scientific
Revolution on agriculture and food production, leading to a mechanistic
view of nature (Merchant 1989). This profound shift in thinking, along
with the Acts of Enclosure, laid the foundation for the development
6 V. A. SWINBANK

of capitalism and the eventual full industrialisation of the food system

which exists in much of the world today. I examine the development
in the twentieth century of chemical farming and the introduction of
genetically modified crops, and the harm caused by this to the health
of people, animals and the environment. This destructive and unsustain-
able food system is now being increasingly imposed on the Global South,
with serious negative effects on female peasant farmers who traditionally
produce the majority of food in an environmentally sound way.
In Chapter 7, I describe the threats posed to food security and food
sovereignty, in which women play a central role. These threats include
industrialised food systems, the use of toxic chemicals in agriculture and
the development of genetically modified crops, which pose a serious threat
to biodiversity. I also examine how the dependence of industrialised food
systems on fossil fuels is a major contributor to climate change, and
hence a very serious threat to food security. I argue that the contrasting
biodiverse, ecologically sustainable practices of the world’s female peasant
farmers provide a solution to the damaging effects of industrial farming,
including that of climate change.
Throughout the world, women in their role as food producers,
food processors, providers and preparers for their families have tradi-
tionally been key to the development and maintenance of the world’s
food systems and cultures. Again this has not been sufficiently recog-
nised/acknowledged. One striking example of this lack is that of British
writer on agricultural issues, Colin Tudge (2004) who says an insight or
‘revelation’ prompted him to write a book on the relationship between
sustainable farming systems and good cooking and nutrition: “It came
to me as if on high that all the world’s great cooking – Chinese, Indian,
peasant French and Italian, Turkish, north African, South-East Asian, East
European – is based on products of traditional farming, for how could it
be otherwise? In other words, … great cooking has evolved over hundreds
or indeed thousands of years to make the best use of wild nature and
traditional farming” (Tudge 2004, 6). However, despite this important
‘revelation’, Tudge makes absolutely no mention of women in his book,
despite women’s crucial and central historical role in food systems, both
production and preparation, throughout the world, a role that has almost
certainly made them largely responsible for the development of sustain-
able food systems and the related cuisines mentioned by Tudge. Tudge
is certainly not alone in this omission; a glance at the index of most
books dealing the history of food and agricultural food systems reveals
 1 INTRODUCTION 7

a glaring absence of any mention of women. Even, the esteemed female

French historian, Maguelonne Toussaint-Samat’s encyclopaedic ‘History
of Food’ (1987) makes only one mention of women and that is to do
with the prohibition on women of drinking wine in ancient Rome.
In Chapter 8, I attempt to address this serious oversight by discussing
women’s crucial role in the vitally important relationship between biodi-
versity and culinary diversity, a relationship, which supports ecologically
sustainable food systems as well as food cultures. The intimate connection
between biodiversity and cultural culinary diversity and women’s central
role in this is only just beginning to be recognised, albeit by a very few,
mostly female ethnobotanists (Howard 2003; Greenberg 2003; Hoffman
2003; Ertug 2003). In this chapter, I examine women’s traditional role in
a wide range of activities associated with biodiversity and culinary diver-
sity: women’s homegardens, which represent a rich source of biodiversity;
women’s role as food-gatherers of wild plants, and their culinary applica-
tion, as well as their medicinal use; women as the custodians of seeds;
the many ingenious ways women have developed over the centuries of
processing and preserving food and women’s work with domesticated
food-producing animals (Sachs 1996). Recognition of women’s central
role in sustainable systems of food production, what is now referred to
as food sovereignty, is of vital importance because it provides not only a
contrast/alternative to, but, even more importantly, provides the solution
to the current environmental and health crises caused by industrialised
food systems.
In Women’s Food Matters I emphasise that women’s crucial role in
developing and maintaining sustainable food systems, including their
central role in the development of the world’s countless regional food
cultures, has not been sufficiently recognised, and indeed is generally
entirely overlooked and even denied. Redressing this omission thus is a
central theme of this book. Through the interdisciplinary and feminist
analysis presented in this book, the central role of women in the develop-
ment and preservation of food cultures is fully acknowledged perhaps for
the first time.

References
Bordo, Susan. 2004. Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the
Body. Berkeley: University of California Press.
8 V. A. SWINBANK

Cairns, Kate, Josee Johnston, and Shyon Baumann. 2010. “Doing Gender in the
Foodie Kitchen.” Gender and Society 24 (5): 591–615.
Dahlberg, Frances, ed. 1981. Woman the Gatherer. New Haven and London:
Yale University Press.
Delphy, Christine, and Diana Leonard. 1992. Familiar Exploitation: A New
Analysis of Marriage in Contemporary Western Societies. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
DeVault, Marjorie L. 1991. Feeding the Family: The Social Organization of
Caring as Gendered Work. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago
Press.
Dickie, John. 2008. Delizia: The Epic History of the Italians and Their Food.
New York and London: Free Press.
Ehrenberg, Margaret. 1989. Women in Prehistory. London: British Museum
Publications.
Ertug, Fusun. 2003. “Gendering the Tradition of Plant Gathering in Central
Anatolia (Turkey).” In Women and Plants: Gender Relations in Biodiver-
sity Management and Conservation, edited by Patricia L. Howard. 183–196.
London and New York: Zed Books.
Fernandez-Armesto, Felipe. 2004. Near a Thousand Tables: A History of Food.
New York: Free Press.
Greenberg, Laurie, S. Z. 2003. “Women in the Garden and Kitchen: The Role of
Cuisine in the Conservation of Traditional House Lot Crops among Yucatec
Mayan Immigrants.” In Women and Plants: Gender Relations in Biodiversity
Management and Conservation, edited by Patricia L. Howard, 51–62. London
and New York: Zed Books.
Gremillion, Kristen, J. 2011. Ancestral Appetites: Food in Prehistory. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hawkes, K., J. F. O’Connell, N. G. Blurton Jones, H. Avarez, and E. L. Charnov.
2002 ‘The Grandmother Hypothesis and Human Evolution’. In Adaptation
and Human Behavior: An Anthropological Perspective, edited by L. Cronk, N.
Chagnon and W. Irons, 231–252. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Hoffman, Shirley. 2003 “Arawakan Women and the Erosion of Traditional Food
Production in Amazonas Venezuela.” In Women and Plants: Gender Relations
in Biodiversity Management and Conservation, edited by Patricia L. Howard,
258–269. London and New York: Zed Books.
Howard, Patricia, L. 2003 “Women and the Plant World: An Exploration.” In
Women and Plants: Gender Relations in Biodiversity Management and Conser-
vation, edited by Patricia L. Howard, 1–48, London and New York: Zed
Books.
Humphries, Jane. 1990. “Enclosures, Common Rights, and Women: The Prole-
terianization of Families in the Late Eighteenth And Early Nineteenth
Centuries.” The Journal of Economic History (1): 17–42.
 1 INTRODUCTION 9

Jovanovski, Natalie 2017. Digesting Femininities: The Feminist Politics of Contem-

porary Food Culture. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, Springer
International Publishing.
Manton, Catherine 1999. Fed Up: Women and Food in America. Westport, CT
and London: Bergin & Garvey.
Meah, Angela, and Peter Jackson. 2013 Crowded Kitchens: The Democratisa-
tion of Domesticity. Gender, Place and Culture. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0966396x.2012.701202.
Merchant, Carolyn. 1989. The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific
Revolution. New York: HarperCollins.
Mies, Maria, Veronica Beenholdt-Thomsen, and Claudia von Werlhof. 1988.
Woman, the Last Colony. London: Zed Books.
Revel, Jean-Francois. 1982. Culture and Cuisine: A Journey Through the History
of Food. Translated by Helen R. Lane. New York: Da Capo.
Rowland, Robyn, and Renate Klein. 1996. “Radical Feminism: History, Politics,
Action.” In Radically Speaking: Feminism Reclaimed, edited by Diane Bell
and Renate Klein, 9–36. Melbourne: Spinifex Press.
Sachs, Carolyn. 1996. Gendered Fields: Rural Women, Agriculture, and the
Environment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Sharpe, Pamela. 2016. Adapting to Capitalism: Working Women in the English
Economy, 1700–1850. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Standage, Tom. 2009. An Edible History of Humanity. New York: Walker
Publishing.
Stanley, Autumn. 1981. “Daughters of Isis, Daughters of Demeter: When
Women Sowed and Reaped.” Women’s Studies International Quarterly 4 (3):
289–304.
Swinbank, Vicki A. 2002. The Sexual Politics of Cooking: A Feminist Analysis
of Culinary Hierarchy in Western Culture. Journal of Historical Sociology 15
(4): 464–494.
Toussaint-Samat, Maguelonne. 2009. History of Food. Translated from the
French by Anthea Bell. Chichester, West Sussex, UK and Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Trubek, Amy. 2000. Haute Cuisine: How the French Invented the Culinary
Profession. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Tudge, Colin. 2004. So Shall We Reap: What’s Gone Wrong with the World’s
Food—And How to Fix it. London: Penguin.
Waring, Marilyn. 1988. Counting for Nothing: What Men Value and What
Women Are Worth. Wellington: Allen and Unwin.
Wrangham, Richard. 2009. Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human.
London: Profile Books.
Zhilman, Adrienne, L. 1981. “Women as Shapers of Human Adaptation.” In
Woman the Gatherer, edited by Frances Dahlberg. New Haven and London:
Yale University Press.
 CHAPTER 2

A Feminist History of Cooking: From

Hunter-Gatherer to Peasant Cooking

French anthropologist, Claude Levi-Strauss considered cooking—which,

like language, is a “truly universal form of human activity”—to be the
key human activity that defines the origins of human culture. Indeed,
according to him, “not only does cooking mark the transition from nature
to culture, but through it and by means of it, the human state can be
defined in all its attributes” (cited in Symons 2004, 103). Other anthro-
pologists consider that the conversion of raw material into cooked food
with the use of fire is the pivotal activity that represents the transition
of human beings from nature to culture, and hence to civilisation, with
the discovery of cooking being “the decisive factor in leading man from
a primarily animal existence into one which is more fully human” (cited
in Symons 2004, 104). Importantly, the discovery and development of
cooking enabled human beings to absorb far more nutrients than is
possible from a diet of raw food:

The overarching benefit of cooking is that it acts as a kind of prediges-

tion that extends the human body’s ability to extract nutrients efficiently,
greatly increasing our ability to adapt to changing circumstances…We use
technology to process food according to the needs of the moment and
store up what we learn in the form of tradition. The resulting body of
knowledge represents the most successful innovations, refined by experience and
accumulated over generations. (Gremillion 2011, 26; italics added)

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 11

Switzerland AG 2021
V. A. Swinbank, Women’s Food Matters,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70396-7_2
12 V. A. SWINBANK

There exists a considerable body of literature on the historical devel-

opment of the uniquely human activity of cooking (Wrangham 2009;
Standage 2009; Fernandez-Armesto 2004). However, none acknowledge
the historical role of women in this vital civilising activity, either crediting
‘man the hunter’ with the discovery of fire, or rendering women invis-
ible with the use of generic terms, such as ‘mankind’ and ‘humanity’. In
this chapter, I ‘flip-flop’ mainstream thinking on this subject by addressing
women’s generally unacknowledged role in the creation and development
of the world’s myriad regional cuisines, and the rich culinary know-how
and knowledge that has been the basis of human culture, civilisation and
survival. Consequently, my feminist approach to the history of cooking
is to invert the androcentric thinking that credits men with that most
civilising activity—cooking—and to re/claim women’s central role in the
development and evolution of the world’s food and culinary cultures.

An Alternative History
of the Development of Cooking: Man
the Hunter vs Woman the Gatherer
The development of cooking has been viewed through an androcentric
lens in many historical accounts (Wrangham 2009; Standage 2009; Tiger
and Fox 1972). What is less known is the central role that women
have played in the role of food preparation and cooking throughout
history. It is thought that the use of fire in the preparation of food
was developed at least 400,000 years ago (Goudsblom 1992, 35). This
development or discovery had a profound effect upon the develop-
ment of the human species because it greatly increased the availability
of foods, which could be rendered more digestible and often less toxic
than in their raw state. A popular belief is that cooking was discovered
by male hunters who found that meat accidentally cooked by a fire,
started perhaps by lightening, tasted better and lasted longer than in
the raw state, and from this invented the means to make this happen
deliberately. However, it is now considered by a number of feminist
scholars that the technology associated with food-gathering and cooking
was developed by female hominids (Zihlman 1981; Ehrenberg 1989;
Stanley 1981). The general belief that the early hominid’s diet was a
meat-based one from large animals provided by male hunters is now also
known to be incorrect, and strongly disputed by mostly female historians
 2 A FEMINIST HISTORY OF COOKING … 13

and anthropologists, such as Evelyn Reed (1975), Margaret Ehrenberg

(1989), Adrienne Zihlman (1981) and Autumn Stanley (1981). They
conclude that women, in their role as mothers and food-gatherers were
the principal providers of plant foods which traditionally make up the
bulk of the diet in hunter-gatherer societies, and in that role invented
or developed the first technology associated with preparing, processing
and storing food, including the controlled use of fire. Feminist anthro-
pologist, Adrienne Zhilman contends that gathering, not hunting was
“the initial food-getting behaviour that distinguished ape from human”
(Zhilman 1981, 93). She argues that hominid females developed the
digging stick for grubbing up roots, a technology that enabled the later
development of horticulture and agriculture. In order to free up their
hands for food-gathering, they would have developed a sling to carry their
infants whilst foraging, as well as containers in which to carry their foraged
food. Zhilman points out that the !Kung hunter-gatherer women of the
Kalahari still use this very technology, pointing to a similar technology
practised by our pre-agricultural hunter-gatherer ancestors.
The bulk of the diet of these hunter-gatherers would have been plant-
based, supplemented by protein from small animals and insects, and the
occasional meat from hunting; food from plants was generally far more
plentiful and reliable compared to the unpredictable nature of food supply
from hunting. Again, the diet of the !Kung is made up mainly of plant
foods and small animals, and as Zhilman points out, studies of hunter-
gatherers, such as the !Kung “show the importance of women in these
groups as an economic force, as they must have been in the past, though
the evidence for this role would leave little or no trace in a record of
the past” (93). Because the technologies—wooden digging sticks, food
containers made of animal skins or woven plant material—were perishable,
in contrast to tools made of stone, there are few, if any, archaeological
records remaining of them. Conversely, because tools made from stone
are associated with hunting large animals, it is generally assumed that
it was male hunters who developed the earliest technology. However,
even stone implements such as flints may have been used for sharp-
ening sticks for grubbing out roots, as they still are amongst present-day
hunter-gatherers. According to feminist researcher of early human tech-
nology, Autumn Stanley, women were responsible for developing the first
technology for both cooking and agriculture:
14 V. A. SWINBANK

No one seriously disputes the overwhelming division-of-labour evidence

that women invented cooking…(with) women’s clever inventions of soap-
stone griddles and pots, of waterproof cooking baskets and the use of hot
stones to boil mush or liquids being the high technology of their day.
(Stanley 1981, 292)

However, in the androcentric tradition of many academic texts on food

preparation and cooking, men are credited with creating human culture,
including the uniquely human activity of cooking. One notable exception
to this is anthropologist Johan Goudsblom, who considers that cooking,
which in the early stages of human development “was largely the work of
women” and would have led to “social co-ordination and individual disci-
pline, with useful spin-off effects as well”, supplying the “first subtle and
intimate knowledge of matter, thus forming the basis for the future devel-
opment of the empirical sciences” (Goudsblom 1992, 35). According to
Zhilman, the ‘obsession’ of most anthropologists with the image of ‘man
the hunter’ has prevented them from looking at women’s role in the
development of human culture. She considers that this androcentric view
credits ‘man the hunter’ with the development of tools, and for the social-
isation of humans evolving from the supposedly co-operative behaviour
needed for hunting in groups. In her view, a more plausible explanation
for the development of human culture portrays:

females as innovators who contributed more than males to the develop-

ment of such allegedly human characteristics such as greater intelligence
and flexibility. Women are said to have invented the use of tools to defend
against predators while gathering and to have fashioned objects to serve in
digging, carrying and food preparation. (Zhilman 1981, 98)

Despite these insights, the male-centred thinking that pervades much of

the academic literature on the topic of food and cooking perceives women
as passive recipients of the results of men acting on and shaping their
environment (Wrangham 2009; Standage 2009; Tiger and Fox 1972).
Such thinking equates women with nature and men with culture, a
common misconception fuelled by stereotyped gender norms. German
feminist sociologist, Maria Mies points out that the masculinist percep-
tion of female productivity is that it is unconscious and passive, especially
women’s ability to give birth; women are perceived as being closer to
nature, and men as the creators and shapers of culture. This mindset aligns
women’s biological role in procreation and suckling of babies with the
 2 A FEMINIST HISTORY OF COOKING … 15

instinctual existence of animals, with women’s domestic cooking seen to

be simply an extension of this essentially animal-like feeding or nurturing
role. Because of the deeply imbued thinking in male supremacist culture
that equates men with culture, any activity when done by men, including
that which is normally done by women, such as cooking, is automatically
elevated to a higher level. As the famous anthropologist, Margaret Mead,
so perceptively noted:

In every known society, the male’s need for achievement can be recognised.
Men may cook, or weave, or dress dolls or hunt hummingbirds, but if such
activities are appropriate occupations of men, then the whole society, men
and women alike, votes them as important. When the same occupations
are performed by women they are regarded as less important. (cited in
Rosaldo and Lamphere 1974, xiii)

If women are indeed responsible for the ‘invention’ of cooking as the

evidence suggests, then it could be argued that, far from being sepa-
rate or one-step removed from culture, as prevailing masculinist thinking
asserts, women are in fact central to and instrumental in the creation of
culture. Cultural anthropologist, Sherry Ortner suggests that in their role
in both the socialising of children—“the transforming of infants from
mere organisms into ‘cultured humans’—and the transforming of ‘raw
nature’ into cooked food, women in fact could not be more representa-
tive of culture” (Ortner 1996, 80). Anthropologist, Johann Goudsblom
further reinforces this point, stating that ‘culture’ is “now generally
accepted in the social sciences as the technical term for referring to
those aspects of behaviour that are ‘learned, shared and transmitted’”
(Goudsblom 1992, 4). According to this perspective, what women do
in the daily round and routine of domestic cooking and in the social-
isation of children undoubtedly qualifies as culture. However, it is the
very everydayness of women’s domestic cooking that causes it to be over-
looked and not counted as culture. As culinary historian Michael Symons
points out, the very “repetitiveness of cooking is part of the reason why
many western intellectuals have snubbed it” (Symons 2004, 26). Down-
playing the significance of domestic cookery in favour of ‘grand’ or ‘haute
cuisine’—a world dominated by the professional cooking status of male
chefs—is one of the primary ways that women’s cooking work is devalued
historically including in contemporary Western culture.
16 V. A. SWINBANK

‘Writers Have Hardly Noticed’: Women’s

Invisibility in Writings About Food History
A number of books have been written in recent years dealing with the
subject of cooking and its history (e.g. Standage 2009; Wrangham 2009;
Fernandez-Armesto 2004). Interestingly, nearly all these books have been
authored by men, despite the fact that, historically and cross-culturally,
cooking has been and is still done principally by women. The exception
to this is professional or ‘haute cuisine’ which has traditionally been done
by men, an issue I address in the following chapter. This follows a long-
standing tradition of men theorising on a cultural activity, even when
that activity is done by women. What is striking, however, about all these
books is that despite, or indeed maybe because of cooking’s central impor-
tance in human development and civilisation, women are either never or
rarely mentioned as active agents or instigators in this crucially impor-
tant development; it is ‘humans’ or ‘mankind’ that is credited, thereby
obscuring women’s central role. As women are invisible generally from
history, so they are from most histories of cooking, despite their central
role in cooking since time immemorial. Given the historical propensity
of men to credit themselves with women’s achievements and creativity,
including that most female of activities, cooking, it stands to reason that
much of the history of cooking has been wrongly attributed to men.
One notable exception to this is Australian culinary historian Michael
Symons who notes that “…gastronomic thinkers, such as Jean-Anthelme
Brillat-Savarin, have tended to pay more attention to enjoying than to
preparing dinners” (Symons 2004, x). Symons is also a rare exception in
his recognition of women’s role in shaping the history of cooking, and
hence civilisation:

Cooks have been in charge –finding, sharing and giving food meaning. We
could not have survived without them. They have been everywhere, yet
writers have hardly noticed....Almost without exception, they have failed
to enquire into the chief occupation of at least half the people who have
ever lived…Cooks have generally been women, and their achievements have
been overlooked as inglorious and private…But while each of the cook’s actions
might be infinitesimal, the results have multiplied into civilisation. (2004, x,
italics added)

What is generally celebrated is the cooking of ‘great’ male chefs, not the
daily domestic cooking of women, who throughout the ages have fed
 2 A FEMINIST HISTORY OF COOKING … 17

and kept humanity alive, making extraordinary meals out of ordinary and
often limited ingredients. This has involved ingenuity, resourcefulness and
creativity. The general belief/assertion that the peasantry of the world
has subsisted on dull, monotonous gruel is an all-pervasive myth that
ignores/denies/denigrates these female achievements.
Even when women write about the history of cooking they tend to
concentrate on the cooking of men, for example Amy Trubek’s “Haute
Cuisine” (2000) and T. Sarah Peterson’s “The Cookbook That Changed the
World” (2006). A general exception to this, however, are female-authored
cookbooks in which the rich legacy of women’s home cooking is often
acknowledged. As French cookery-book author, Madeleine Kamman
states, acknowledging that women’s home cooking has formed the basis
of the world’s myriad cuisines: “these women’s dishes can be traced back
almost to proto-history….The food lore put forth by women across the
world is so rich a treasury that it can be tapped almost endlessly by
the serious student of cookery in order to link the past to the present”
(Kamman 2002, 6–7). In a similar vein, Greek cookery writer, Aglaia
Kremezi, who dedicates her book to her mother and to the “Mediter-
ranean women who bring love and joy to the table, the two secret
ingredients that elevate even the humblest meal to an amazing feast”,
says that, when preparing the daily meal on the Greek island of Kea based
on produce from her garden, she feels that every day she “can rely upon
a tremendously rich legacy to guide me. The dishes I grew up with were
created and perfected over centuries by resourceful female cooks from
all over the Mediterranean, inventing myriad ways to use seasonally local
produce” (2014, 12).
Despite the reluctance of most male food writers and historians to
acknowledge this rich female cultural heritage, there is the occasional
notable male cookbook writer who is willing to credit women’s creative
culinary genius, one such being the following, expressed by Ken Hom:

Chinese cuisine reflects Chinese life itself: The grand design and profound
richness of Chinese cuisine rests upon many centuries of dedicated appli-
cation, splendid institutions, accidental discoveries, and brilliant impro-
visations by millions of ordinary Chinese, usually women, working within
countless family kitchens. Their skills and knowledge have been passed on
through the centuries and spread gradually across villages and regions.
(Hom1990, 95; italics added)
18 V. A. SWINBANK

Acknowledging the significance of women’s culinary legacies is also a

strong feature of Turkish writer, Tarhi Öztan’s, A Taste of Heaven
in Turkey; the Gourmet Cuisine of Gaziantep, based on five years of
researching the cooking of thousands of women in and around Gaziantep
in the south-east of Turkey. Speaking passionately about the cuisine of this
region, Öztan sings the praises of the many generations of women who
have created the vast number of dishes for which Gaziantep is famous. In
his book recording this rich cultural heritage, he emphasises that “these
dishes are the creation of Gaziantep women. They are the ones who made
them famous” (Öztan 2014, 10).

Cooking and the ‘Mating’ Hypothesis

In contrast to the above, and more typical of male-authored histories of
cooking is that by Richard Wrangham, whose book, ‘Catching Fire: How
Cooking Made Us Human’ (2009), is a classic example of male-centred,
sexist theories on the evolution of cooking. Wrangham relies on gendered
stereotypes about men and women which position women in subordi-
nate roles. Amongst his many sweeping and unsubstantiated claims is
his contention that cooking is the original basis of the sexual division
of labour, and hence of women’s subservience to men. He subscribes to
the traditional masculinist image of ‘man the hunter’, who, on returning
hungry from the hunt, expected to have a meal prepared for him by his
female mate, who in turn needed his protection against the danger of
other males stealing her food:

A hunter-gatherer woman returns to camp in the middle of the day

carrying the raw foods she has obtained. She then prepares and cooks
for the evening meal at her own individual fire …Females needed male
protection, specifically because of cooking. A male used his social power both
to ensure that a female did not lose her food, and to guarantee his own
meal by assigning the work of cooking to the female. (Wrangham 2009,
155–160; italics added)

Wrangham, who is a primatologist, says that his “interest in cooking

comes largely from trying to understands reasons for the similarities and
differences between the behaviour of chimpanzees and humans” (211).
He draws parallels between non-human primates and humans with regard
to food and mating, arguing that: “The food guarding, provisioning
 2 A FEMINIST HISTORY OF COOKING … 19

by females, and respect for possession found in animals are associated

with males competing over sexual access to females, but only in humans
have they led to households” (174). He even goes so far as to compare
insect feeding behaviour with humans, based on observation of a partic-
ular Australian insect, that ‘allows’ a male to ride on her back in order
to prevent other males from interfering with her own access to food!
He concludes from this that “females feed males to reward them for
behaving well. That is close to the system found in humans” (172). He
asserts that cooking itself gave rise to the heterosexual male-female bond.
Because cooking takes time, and the lone female cook needs to be able
to defend against “determined thieves such as hungry males without their
own food…Pair bonds solve the problem. Having a husband ensures that
a woman’s gathered foods will not be taken by others; having a wife
ensures the man will have an evening meal” (155). I contend that Wrang-
ham’s hypothesis is highly problematic. Extrapolating the behaviour in
non-human primates, and even insects, to humans is certainly question-
able, to say the least. Furthermore, his theory of cooking perpetuates
the androcentric, heteronormative myth of ‘man the hunter’ who, having
been out hunting all day, returns to the hearth for a meal prepared by
his female mate, a sexual dimorphism that “conjures up the image of big,
strong, dominant men as hunters of large beasts and protectors of small,
fragile women” (Zhilman 1981, 97). Wrangham’s hypothesis assumes
that an individual woman sat tending her individual fire as she cooked
the evening meal for ‘her man’, imposing a modern individualistic notion
on ancient human relations. Zhilman rightly warns against assuming “a
division of labour such as occurs in living peoples to apply automatically
to the ancient past” (105).
Wrangham’s claims also call to mind the notion of individualistic
rather than collective cooking. Rather than a lone woman attending her
individual fire, it is far more likely women gathered food and cooked it co-
operatively with other women, both for efficiency and possibly safety. The
notion of the weak, defenceless female needing to be provided for and
protected by a male partner is very much a product of Western masculinist
thinking that tends to dominate most analysis of the evolution of human
behaviour. According to Zhilman “contrary to many reconstructions of
early human social life that picture women as burdened with young,
sitting back at camp waiting for the hunter’s return, hominid mothers
must have been actively moving around the environment, getting food
and carrying infants while doing so” (1981, 89). The survival success of
20 V. A. SWINBANK

early humans depended upon co-operation and sharing, rather than indi-
vidualism and competition. Feminist anthropologists contend that sharing
probably began between a mother and her offspring, with food sharing
being mainly within the matrifocal group. As Zhilman further explains:

Sharing requires physical proximity and would be encouraged by stability

of group membership. The enduring nature of the primate mother –child
tie suggests that groups of mothers and children would be the nucleus of
permanent groups amongst hominids. Both sharing of food and sharing
of infant and childcare are incompatible with rigid dominance hierarchies
or extremely aggressive behaviour. If dominant individuals could usurp the
food hunted or gathered by less dominant members of the group, there
would be no real sharing. (9–10)

According to American anthropologist, Kristen Hawkes, the hunting

hypothesis persists partly because “the association of stone tools with
the bones of large animals at central places, dates to the beginning
of the archaeological record, and coincides broadly with the origin of
genus Homo itself” (Hawkes et al. 2002, 146). The prevailing belief that
prehistoric male hunting provided the bulk of the early human diet is
challenged by the fact that in existing hunter-gatherer societies, food from
hunting is sporadic and unreliable, and that it is “women’s foraging, not
men’s hunting, that differentially affects an individual family’s nutritional
welfare” (Hawkes et al. 2002, 247). According to Hawkes et al., the
‘hunting hypothesis’ that credits male hunters in prehistoric society with
the evolution of human beings, including social learning, persists largely
“because of the absence of an alternative”. The authors contend that:
“The grandmother hypothesis challenges the popular model in which
men’s hunting to provision wives and offspring is key to the evolution
of distinctly human patterns of social organization and child develop-
ment” (253). Hawkes et al. argue that the ‘grandmother hypothesis’
provides such an alternative: human beings are unique amongst primates
in the fact that human females live past their reproductive years, so
that post-menopausal women have long played a vital role in supporting
their daughters during their child-bearing years with the feeding and
socialisation of grandchildren .
 2 A FEMINIST HISTORY OF COOKING … 21

‘Crude and Indigestible’: The

Denigration of Women’s Rural Cooking
Apart from the absence of women in most histories of food and cooking,
there is a general assumption that the cooking of the common people
consisted largely of barely palatable gruel, in contrast to the food of
the wealthy, with a diet rich in often highly spiced animal protein. This
assumption is based partly on the fact that there are few records of what
the general populous ate, whereas there are many records of the diet
of the rich and aristocracy. A typical view of the food of the common
people is expressed, for instance, by food historian Clifford A. Wright
who, although admitting that there is little knowledge of the diet of
“the huge majority who lived on the margins of rich society”, neverthe-
less claims that the poor “had no cuisine”, subsisting on “rations of salt
meat, hardtack, wine and vinegar” (Wright 1999, 48–49). He omits to
say how poor peasant women managed to create amazing dishes despite
the relative lack of costly ingredients, like meat. What little animal protein
they had was supplemented by home-grown vegetables, wild plants, herbs
and fungi. Italian ethnobotanist, Andrea Pieroni, for instance, found that
women in Tuscany use more than fifty different wild plants to make
soups, and amongst the Albanian Arbereshe people of southern Italy,
Arbershe women use more than 110 plants, of which about fifty are wild
species (Pieroni 2003). Nevertheless, despite this botanical richness and
the resulting culinary and nutritional variety, Wright, like many others,
assumes that the food of the poor was dull and monotonous; he considers
the real impetus for the development of Mediterranean cuisines was the
“creative impulse of the Renaissance” (41).
In a similar vein, in his book “Delizia! The Epic History of the Italians
and Their Food” (2008), John Dickie refutes the general belief that Italy’s
cuisine is peasant-based. Describing the cooking of the ‘masses’ as “crude
and indigestible” he asserts that, contrary to popular belief, Italian cuisine
originated in the cities of Italy, not the countryside. Emphasising that
“Italian food is city food”, Dickie considers that:

A history of Italian food written as the story of what peasants ate would
make for a stodgy read. Many pages would be devoted to vegetable soup.
There would be a substantial section on porridge. Bread made from inferior
grains, and even from things like acorns in times of hardship, would need
in-depth coverage…..It may have been the country folk who produced
22 V. A. SWINBANK

the cheese and pears, but the people with the power to appropriate these
ingredients, and with the knowledge to transform them into a delicacy by
a simple but artful combination, were the inhabitants of the cities. (Dickie
2008, 6–7, original italics)

Dickie’s statement typifies a belief that only the food of the wealthy can
be tasty and interesting. Whilst it is true that historically, and indeed even
now, the ‘pick of the crop’ tends to be diverted from the country to the
cities, and that urban centres have always had more access to different,
more varied and imported ingredients, it is inaccurate to assume that
means that the cooking of the countryside is necessarily inferior to that of
the cities. The main difference is that country cooking is simpler and less
rich in animal products. Nevertheless, the very simplicity for which Italian
cuisine is renowned is attributed to the cities, not the rural population by
Dickie who says that “Italian cuisine has a justified reputation for being
delicious without being pretentious, complex or expensive… (and that)
those values were first integrated into Italy’s civilization of the table not
by the peasants, but by the middle classes of the peninsula’s many cities”
(257).1
However, in contrast to Dickie’s assertion, in her book, “The Food
of Italy”, food historian and cookbook writer, Claudia Roden (2014),
describes how “Italian food is basically country cooking for large fami-
lies, a combination of peasant food and the grand dishes of the nobility,
that were (only) eaten by the peasants on special occasions – some only
once a year at carnival time” (2014, 10). It is an over-simplification to
say that Italian cuisine is solely a product of cities, as Dickie insists; as
Roden points out, although particular dishes “may have a city stamp,
…they have their roots in the land because town and country in Italy
have always been closely bound” (10). Even if some of Italy’s signa-
ture dishes were a product of urban life (and of course the cooking in
the homes of the ordinary urban population would have been done by
women), their origins would almost certainly have been rurally based. For
instance, speaking of the Italian province of Piedmont, Roden describes
how, despite there being a rich tradition of country cooking in the region,
it was only the French-influenced cooking of the middle classes of Turin
that was recognised, with the “extraordinary rich variety of country dishes
(being) ignored until they arrived at the capital with the influx of peas-
ants who were to form the new working class” (22). A classic example of
a particular dish being associated with a city is the famous Genoese pesto;
 2 A FEMINIST HISTORY OF COOKING … 23

although, as the name implies, it is associated with the capital of Liguria,

Genoa, its origins undoubtedly are rural. In her book, “Mediterranean
Cooking ”, food writer and cookbook author, Paula Wolfert traces the
many regional variations of garlic and olive oil-based sauces around the
Mediterranean. With archaeological records showing a peasant in antiq-
uity pounding garlic, olive oil and herbs, over time this basic sauce
manifested as skordalia in Greece with the incorporation of bread or
potatoes, tarator in Turkey with the addition of walnuts or hazelnuts,
salmoriglio in Sicily using olive oil, lemon juice, herbs, salt and garlic,
harissa in Tunisia with the addition of hot pepper and cumin or caraway,
chermoula in Morocco, using garlic, cumin paprika, parsley and fresh
coriander, aioli, enriched with egg-yolks in Provence, and of course the
famous basil, pinenut or walnut, olive oil and garlic sauce of Genoa, pesto.
The belief in the paucity and dullness of the diet of the general popu-
lation—a belief promulgated, it has to be said, mainly by male food
historians—is, unwittingly or not, a dismissal of the rich heritage of
women’s domestic cooking, on which in fact all the great regional cuisines
of the world are based. In the passionate words of Madeleine Kamman:

Known in America as ‘ethnic’ food, the foods of the humble people repre-
sent the enormously rich font of cuisine provided by all the women in
the world. One look at the cuisine of all the nations will reveal that it
exists everywhere: in the Orient, in the Islamic countries, through Africa,
all over the Americas, and all over Europe. Humble earthy foods and food
combinations were produced by generations and generations of women
in an attempt to feed families economically with what was at hand. The
French provincial and regional cuisines, sometimes called cuisine de terroir,
cuisine de femmes, cuisine de misere, or in more gallant, more modern
terms, cuisine du coeur, and the cucine casalinghe of all the regions and
provinces of Italy belong to this category. …This pool of women’s foods is
our ancestral patrimony. It is the material we are all made of whether we
are born rich or poor… (Kamman 2002, 6; italics added).

The recording of recipes in the early days of literacy was done almost
entirely by men, who were usually upper-class men of leisure and profes-
sional gastronomes. These men were eaters rather than cooks, and as such
professed themselves expert in all things gastronomic. As a result, these
male-authored records tend to not only reflect the diets of the wealthy,
but also have the effect of disappearing or marginalising women’s central
role in the development of cuisines. As the Moroccan cook and author,
24 V. A. SWINBANK

Fatema Hal, says: “Our cuisine, whether it is berber, arabo-muslim or

jewish, is before all else a history of women, even if, curiously, it is men
of the seventeenth century who wrote it” (Hal 2005, 10; my translation
from the original French).
The masculinist mindset that cannot allow for women’s central role in
the development of the world’s myriad cuisines even extends to cred-
iting men with the creation of national cuisines. The disappearing of
women from their central role in the development of cuisine, either
deliberately or unconsciously, features throughout most of John Dick-
ie’s history of Italian cuisine, and is vividly illustrated in his discussion of
Pelligrino Artusi’s role in recording and codifying Italian cuisine. Despite
acknowledging that many of the recipes were sent to Artusi by his literate
middle-class female readers, thereby creating a ‘multi-authored work’,
Dickie nevertheless asserts that “even today, Italians discover that their
grandmothers’ recipes are often, in reality, Artusian formulae that have
seeped unattributed into family lore” (Dickie 2008, 196; italics added). I
would argue, however, it is in fact, once again, women’s domestic cooking
that is being generally unattributed by male culinary historians, such as
Dickie. Also, the point here is that, although Artusi was concerned with
recording and codifying Italian cuisine, he did not invent the recipes he
recorded. The development of cuisine is not the result of an individual
‘invention’, but the accumulated, shared knowledge of women’s collective
creativity over many generations in their daily role of domestic cooking.
In his description of the development of cooking during the Renais-
sance, Dickie credits Bartolomeo Scappi, the cook to the pope, with
having “had a profound influence over Italian eating for centuries…and
he left us with a picture of a cuisine that can justifiably be called Italian
– a cuisine, in other words, that drew on ingredients and techniques
from most corners of the peninsular” (102; original italics). He considers
that: “Cooks are the heroes of the history of Italian food in the late
Middle Ages and the Renaissance”, with most of them coming from
humble rural backgrounds, and therefore having a knowledge of the
produce brought into the cities from the countryside. It goes without
saying that these ‘heroes’, who became employed in the households of
the aristocracy and the wealthy, were male. The fact that they came from
humble rural backgrounds means that they would certainly have learnt
their cooking and food knowledge and skills from observing the cooking
of the local women, particularly their mothers and grandmothers, but
this is not acknowledged by Dickie. He mentions the fact that hundreds
 2 A FEMINIST HISTORY OF COOKING … 25

of these (male) cooks who “brought Italian food to such heights” remain
unnamed and unknown, but the truly unnamed and unacknowledged are
in fact the countless generations of female domestic cooks who provided
the culinary background to these professional male chefs.
The assumption that the diet of the peasantry consisted of little more
than monotonous tasteless gruel is a common theme in most—espe-
cially male-authored—histories of food. In fact, whilst the cooking of
the wealthy aristocracy may have become codified and hence standard-
ised, regional peasant cooking, due to its very frugality, was often highly
innovative. Indeed, as food historian and cookery-book writer, Elisabeth
Luard asserts, the very limitations imposed on peasants, with their depen-
dency on what they grew or was locally available gave it its “particular
identity … and in no sense meant that the ingredients were necessarily
poor or inferior” (Luard 1987, xiv). Speaking of the harsh terrain and
poverty of the Riviera, especially the inland region, food writer Colman
Andrews contends that the “very poverty of the region’s cuisine mandated
a certain rustic inventiveness, a culinary creativity grown …out of the
sheer need to survive (and that) the indigenous traditional cuisine of the
Riviera – as opposed to hotel and fancy restaurant fare and more contem-
porary refinements – is based on ingenuity, conservation, and reuse (of
leftovers)” (Andrews 2000, 12). He describes two wonderful meals, both
prepared by women, one on the French Riviera and the other on the
Italian Riviera, based only on what was locally available; the Italian one,
for example, consisted of several simply prepared dishes of local vegetables
and herbs and walnuts, and a rabbit stew with herbs and white wine—in
short, the local, humble ingredients that local rural women would have
been cooking for generations. He comments that he was “astonished
and impressed. Everything seemed so honest and direct – so much of
the region, and confident in its regional identity. And everything tasted
wonderful. This was real food, and not food that I was likely to encounter
anywhere else in the world” (3).

‘Inspired Improvisation’: The Rich

Tradition of Female Domestic Cooking
In ‘Puglia: a Culinary Memoir’, Maria Pignatelli Ferrante describes how
the cooking of the region is “the fruit of thousands of years of poverty,
and the creativity and intelligence of a people struggling simply to
26 V. A. SWINBANK

survive….creating simple and inventive recipes, which call on all the culti-
vated and wild produce that grows in this ancient land” (Ferrante 2008,
7–10). She describes how the women of Puglia have shown enormous
creativity in inventing dishes that are “nothing short of true gastronomic
masterpieces”, such as a vast variety of foods fried in the plentiful olive
oil of the region, and ‘tielle’, casseroles of layered baked vegetables (53).
Pulses, such as fava beans, both fresh and dried, chickpeas, lupini beans
and lentils provided most of the protein of the peasantry; the poten-
tial monotony of such staples was enlivened by the imaginative addition
of vegetables, such as chicory, and a wealth of other greens and herbs,
both wild and cultivated, fungi gathered in the wild, and chilli once it
was introduced from the New World. Ferrante describes how the house-
hold vegetable garden provided zucchini, artichokes, peppers, tomatoes
and eggplants, with the surplus being preserved in olive oil, or dried in
the sun, to be re-hydrated in winter. Preserved olives and anchovies also
added variety and flavour. Meat was a relative luxury, eaten only occasion-
ally, such as on festive days, although wild rabbit and a variety of preserved
meats, ‘salume’, from the family pig, as well as local cheese, such as
sheep’s milk pecorino, provided additional protein, and the flavours so
characteristic of the region. Far from being the dreary, monotonous diet
of the peasantry described by food historians, such as Dickie, the food
of one of the poorest parts of Italy, Puglia, illustrates how the ingenuity
and imagination of the women cooks of that region created a delicious,
distinctive, healthy and richly varied cuisine based only what was locally
available. As Ferrante points out, this peasant food, or ‘cucina povera’ has
now become all the rage in fashionable restaurants.
Calabria, another region of southern Italy known for its often harsh
and challenging terrain, and its traditional ‘cucina povera’, is rich in
biological diversity “embodied in a cultural diversity closely bound up
with the methods adopted for processing the local produce” (Olivera
2014, 15). Its cuisine is a product of people wresting a living out of
its challenging terrain, using creativity and inventiveness, “devising new
ways and techniques for extracting flavour from simple ingredients” (15).
Far from the local cuisine being dull and monotonous, Valentina Olivera
observes that “it is impossible to find a single recipe that unifies the
region. There exist countless variations and local versions of every dish,
growing out of the complex interweaving of history and nature” (15).
In Crete, also a traditionally poor part of the Mediterranean, meat has
constituted a small part of the traditional Cretan diet, considered to be
 2 A FEMINIST HISTORY OF COOKING … 27

one of the world’s healthiest. The diet of the Cretan peasantry was based
on grains—wheat or barley—pulses, vegetables and olive oil. In addition,
for religious reasons, meat was forbidden for at least one-third of the year,
although fish was allowed. As a result, the cooking relied on vegetables,
herbs, wild plants, grains and pulses, which, far from making for a limited
and boring diet, inspired innovation in creating an enormous variety from
seasonally available produce. In Cretan cooking “All the flavours come
together harmoniously in a dish and show a fine balance of taste…. Cretan
food is a way of life, simple and basic…and quite delicious! Combined in
this simplicity is a creativeness of the housewife who has in her hands centuries
of experience…. The women of Crete are the ones to whom we now owe the
survival of ancient recipes along with their creativity” (Psilakis and Psilakis
2000, 24, italics added).
The common assumption that the harsher the environment, the poorer
the diet is, is refuted by French food historian, Jean-Louis Flandrin. He
explains that, in a fascinating paradox, peasants in more geographically
challenged places were often healthier and also more resilient against food
shortages. This was because people in fertile areas tended to focus on
grain growing, such as wheat, which constituted the bulk of the diet,
with the surplus being sold on the market. As a result, in times of crop
failure they were much more likely to suffer from famine than those living
in less fertile environments. He gives a couple of examples, both French.
The inhabitants of the Beauce region, one of Frances’s richest breadbas-
kets, with their reliance on wheat, were vulnerable to crop failures, during
which they were forced to seek refuge with the peasants of the neigh-
bouring, geographically poor Solonge region who fared better due to
their “comparatively old-fashioned and therefore more varied diet”. Simi-
larly, the peasants of the wealthy and fertile Limagne region had generally
poor health as a result of their reliance on wheat and suffered during crop
failures. In contrast, the peasantry of the Auvergne with its poor soil and
harsh climate were much healthier because of their much more varied diet
based on raising livestock, hunting, gathering wild plants and fishing, as
well as farming (Flandrin 1999, 352).
Far from stunting culinary imagination, the very nature of the rela-
tive limitation of ingredients created by using what was only locally and
seasonally available was, in fact, an impetus to creativity and innovation.
As Tom Stobard reminds us: “We should remember, too, that inspired
improvisation by cooks in circumstances where only a limited range of
ingredients was obtainable led to the invention of some of the world’s
28 V. A. SWINBANK

great dishes” (1980, intro.). Although he does not mention the sex of the
cooks, they would inevitably have been female as professional male cooks
generally have not had to deal with scarcity. Greek food writer, Aglaia
Kremezi, points out that: “Frugal cooks around the Mediterranean were
limited to a small variety of vegetables and greens for months on end,
so they devised an incredible number of ways to prepare them differ-
ently. They stew vegetables with aromatics, stuff them with bulgur or rice,
grate them, and mix them with cheese to make the filling for pies, or fry
them and serve them with tarator or skordalia” (Kremezi 2014, 128). Yet
another example of women’s ingenuity, in making sure that no precious
food is wasted, is the vast repertoire of cooking based on the use of left-
over stale bread. Describing how “an entire cuisine has been built on
leftover bread”, Carol Field lists the enormous range of dishes made from
stale bread, including soups, salads, dumplings, desserts, with a myriad
variation depending on the region and the individual cook (Field 1997,
18). Describing the food culture of the Mediterranean region, food histo-
rian Carol Helstosky, notes that under conditions of food scarcity caused
by poverty, and during the aftermath of the Second World War, women
have had to be particularly inventive, for instance, making ‘meatballs’ out
of stale bread. She considers that: “Under such conditions, cooking is
a creative achievement that is frequently overlooked or undervalued by
historians of food and cooking, who tend to focus on the more elabo-
rated culinary achievements of individuals or societies” (Helstosky 2009,
65).
Italian food writer Anna del Conte explains that the appreciation and
respect Italians have for the quality of ingredients, with the main flavour
of the produce “coming through loud and clear”, is directly connected
to the love Italians have for ‘cucina casalingua regionale’ (regional home
cooking), and that “even recipes developed by the greatest chefs can be
traced back to home cooking” (del Conte 2004, 10). Indeed, the fact that
the best and most authentic regional cooking is invariably found in the
homes of the common people is generally a cross-cultural phenomenon.
Speaking of Indian cooking, for instance, Priti Narain contends that “of
course the best food from any region is to be found in the homes of
the people. Each family has its own way of cooking a particular dish and
each one is ‘authentic’” (Narain 2000, 4). Similarly, albeit in a different
cultural context, Turkish food historian, Tekin Öztan, describes how, in
his extensive research on the domestic cooking of Gaziantep in south-
east Turkey, he found that, faced with thousands of recipes, “we sorted
 2 A FEMINIST HISTORY OF COOKING … 29

them by dish, only to find out there were a hundred different versions
of each….Two neighbours, even two siblings could give you different
recipes for the same dish” (Öztan 2014, 11).
Anthropologist Jack Goody points out that the emphasis on high meat
consumption has resulted in the belief by many food historians that meat
is the most important element of the human diet. An accompanying
assumption is that the diet of the peasantry, with its traditionally low
meat consumption is poor and inadequate. In fact, in general, the diet
of the peasantry was probably a lot healthier than that of the wealthy.
As Elisabeth Luard says: “The old peasant kitchen habits of frugality
(involved) making stock out of bones, pickling and salting in times of
glut, stocking the pantry, (and) making good food out of few and simple
ingredients” (Luard 1987, xiv). She adds that “in the real terms in the
life expectancy of the peasantry, such as that of England in feudal times,
who, having survived the dangerous childhood years, were likely to live
longer and in better health than their overlord who dined daily on large
quantities of meat and white bread” (xiv). This, of course, is not to
deny the fact that there were not times of great scarcity and hardship
for the peasantry, be it from poor weather, or more likely, the fact that
landlords purloined the bulk of the peasants produce in many regions.
Peasant, that is women’s cooking, used meat—admittedly per force—in
small quantities. In the diet of the wealthy where meat was eaten in large
quantities, with a preference for roasting, it was a symbol of status and
power (Montanari 1999, 180). Whilst meat was highly esteemed, vegeta-
bles, and especially legumes, were generally regarded as the food of the
poor and so were not valued. Vegetables generally came from kitchen
gardens; eggs and honey were also home-produced and therefore were
outside the money economy (Santich 1995, 24). Significantly, because
women were the producers of these home products they were not seen to
have market value, despite rural women selling any surplus in the village
market. This devaluing or lack of acknowledgement of women’s major
contribution to the development of the world’s cuisines is a manifestation
of the masculinist devaluing of women’s creativity and ingenuity, whilst
attributing these qualities exclusively to men.
Women’s frugality and ability to make do with whatever is available
tended to be dismissed, even disparaged by male chefs. Renowned French
chef, Auguste Escoffier, for instance, opined that a “woman…will manage
with what she has handy. This is very nice and obliging of her, no doubt,
but it eventually spoils her cooking, and the dish is not a success….her
30 V. A. SWINBANK

cooking pales before that of a man, who makes his dishes preferable on all
occasions to hers” (cited in Trubek 2000, 125). In the following chapter,
I examine the development of a culinary hierarchy in which male profes-
sional cooking is awarded a higher cultural status than the female tradition
of domestic cooking, even though the former is dependent, although
generally unacknowledged, on the latter.

Note
1. Although cities may not be the main source of regional cuisines, as Dickie
insists is the case with Italian cuisine, it is important to note that, histor-
ically, many cities in the world, especially those on trading routes, have
often provided a rich melting pot of different cuisines where women from
different ethnic and religious backgrounds often exchange recipes. One
such example is that in Nawal Nasrallah’s book on Iraqi cooking. She
describes how, when she was growing up in Baghdad, such sharing and
exchange took place in her neighbourhood between women including those
who were Kurdish, Armenian, Palestinian, Indian, Iraqi of course, as well
as who were Muslim, Jewish and Christian (Nawal Nasrallah, Delights from
the Garden of Eden: A Cookbook and History of the Iraqi Cuisine, 2013,
Equinox Publishing, Sheffield, UK).

References
Andrews, Colman. 2000. Flavours of the Riviera: Discovering the Real Cooking
of France and Italy. London: Grub Street.
Del Conte, Anna. 2004. Classic Food of Northern Italy. London: Pavillion.
Dickie, John. 2008. Delizia: The Epic History of the Italians and Their Food.
New York and London: Free Press.
Ehrenberg, Margaret. 1989. Women in Prehistory. London: British Museum
Publications.
Field, Carol. 1997. In Nonna’s Kitchen: Recipes and Traditions from Italy’s
Grandmothers. New York: HarperCollins.
Flandrin, Jean-Louis. 1999. “Introduction: The Early Modern Period.” In Food:
A Culinary History, edited by Jean-Louis Flandrin and Massimo Montanari,
349–373. New York and London: Penguin.
Fernandez-Armesto, Felipe. 2004. Near a Thousand Tables: A History of Food.
New York: Free Press.
Ferrante, Maria Pignatelli. 2008. Puglia: A Culinary Memoir N ew York: Oronzo
Publications.
 2 A FEMINIST HISTORY OF COOKING … 31

Goody, Jack. 1982. Cooking, Cuisine and Class: A Study in Comparative

Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goudsblom, Johan. 1992. Fire and Civilisation. New York: Penguin.
Gremillion, Kristen J. 2011. Ancestral Appetites: Food in Prehistory. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hal, Fatema. 2005. Le Grand Livre de la Cuisine Marocaine. Paris: Hachette.
Hawkes, K., J. F. O’Connell, N. G. Blurton Jones, H. Avarez, and E. L. Charnov.
2002 “The Grandmother Hypothesis and Human Evolution.” In Adaptation
and Human Behavior: An Anthropological Perspective, edited by L. Cronk, N.
Chagnon, and W. Irons, 231–252. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Helstosky, Carol. 2009. Food Culture in the Mediterranean. Westport, CT and
London: Greenwood Press.
Hom, Ken. 1990. The Taste of China. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Kamman, Madeleine. 2002. When French Women Cook: A Gastronomic Memoir.
Berkley, CA: Ten speed Press.
Kremezi, Aglaia. 2014. Mediterranean Vegetarian Feasts. New York: Stewart,
Tabori and Chang.
Luard, Elisabeth. 1987. The Old World Kitchen: The Rich Tradition of European
Peasant Cooking. New York: Bantam Books.
Mies, Maria, Veronica Beenholdt-Thomsen, and Claudia von Werlhof. 1988.
Woman, the Last Colony. London: Zed Books.
Montanari, Massimo. 1999. “Peasants, Warriors, Priests: Images of Society and
Styles of Diet.” In Food, A Culinary History, edited by Jean-Louis Flandrin
and Massimo Monantari, 178–185. New York: Columbia University Press.
Narain, Priti. 2000. The Essential Delhi Cookbook. New Delhi: Penguin.
Olivera, Valentina. 2014. Calabria in Cucina: The Flavours of Calabria. San
Vendemiano: Sime Books.
Ortner, Sherry. 1996. “So, is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture?” In Making
Gender: The Politics and Erotics of Culture. Boston: Beacon Press.
Öztan, Tahir Tekin. 2014. A Taste of Heaven in Turkey: Gourmet Cuisine of
Gaziantep. Istanbul: Oglak.
Peterson, Sarah T. 2006. The Cookbook that Changed the World: The Origins of
Modern Cuisine. Stroud, UK: Tempus Publishing.
Pieroni, Andrea. 2003. “Wild Food Plants and Arberesh Women in Lucania,
Southern Italy.” In Women and Plants: Gender Relations in Biodiversity
Management and Conservation, edited by Patricia L. Howard. London and
New York: Zed books.
Psilakis, Maria, and Nikos Psilakis. 2000. Cretan Cooking. Heraklion, Crete:
Karmanon.
Reed, Evelyn. 1975. Woman’s Evolution from Matriarchal Clan to Patriarchal
Family. New York: Pathfinder Press.
Roden, Claudia. 2014. The Food of Italy, Region by Region. London: Square Peg.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 13. And this is the method not only of those who misplace
learning, but also of the most of those who place it right. Even these
do not generally think for it, but read for it; seek it not in their souls,
but in books. I deny not that reading is one way to knowledge; but
then ’tis only by accident, as it is a help to thinking. And therefore
thinking is the only thing to be regarded even in reading; for reading,
as such, is nothing. And then we read to most purpose, when we are
thereby most enabled to think. So that thinking is the immediate end
of reading, as understanding is of thinking. And yet this method is
generally so much inverted, that the main stress is laid upon reading.
Nothing but read, read, as long as eyes and spectacles will hold; no
matter whether the head be clear, so it be but full.

14. Again, whereas purity of heart and life is another method of

attaining true knowledge, ’tis a sad as well as just observation, that
this is not only neglected by those who sit down contentedly in
ignorance, but also by the generality of those few that addict
themselves to the improvement of their minds. Nay, these, in
proportion to their number, seem more guilty in this respect than the
others, and nothing is so common, as to see men of famed learning,
who are yet very corrupt in their tempers and lives. Whence some
have fancied learning an enemy to religion, and cried up ignorance
as the mother of devotion. And tho’ their conclusion be notoriously
absurd, yet it must be owned, the ground on which they build it is too
true. Men famed for learning are often as infamous for living; and
many that study hard to furnish their heads, are yet very negligent in
purifying their hearts: not considering, that there is a moral as well as
a natural communication between them; and that they are concerned
to be pure in heart and life, not only upon the common account in
order to happiness hereafter, but even in order to their own particular
end here.
 15. Then, lastly, whereas another method of learning is prayer;
the generality of students do not apply themselves to this at all. Pray
indeed (’tis to be hoped) they do for other things which they think lie
more out of their reach; but as for learning, they think they can
compass this well enough by their own industry, and the help of good
books, without being beholden to the assistance of heaven. But did
they attentively consider, that God is truth, ’tis not to be imagined
they would be so indifferent in using prayer, or any of the preceding
methods of consulting God for his own light.
 The Third
R E F L E C T I O N.
Wherein the general conduct of human life is taxed with too
importunate a pursuit of knowledge in general.

HAVING
1. past the two first stages of our intellectual conduct, that
of the end ♦ and that of the means, and reflected on the
irregularities of each, I come now to the third and last, which
consists not in the choice of the object, or of the method to it, but in
the degree of affection wherewith it is prosecuted. And this part of
our conduct is as irregular and faulty, if not more so, than either of
the former: and the fault of it is, a too importunate pursuit of
knowledge in general.

♦ duplicate word “and” removed

2. This charge is of a larger extent than either of the preceding:

those concerning such only, as either misplace the object, or mistake
the method of learning. But not only they who err in the placing of
learning, or in the way to it, but even they who are right in both come
under this censure; they all agree in pursuing it too importunately.

3. In order to make out the truth of this charge it will be necessary

first to consider, how far it becomes man to employ himself in the
prosecution of knowledge; and then it will be easy to determine,
whether our general pursuit of it be immoderate or no. Now for the
determination of the former, let us observe the present state of man,
the posture wherein he now stands.
 4. And, First, The utmost knowledge man can arrive at in this
world, by his utmost endeavours, is very inconsiderable.

*God indeed has given us reason enough to distinguish us from

the brute creation, and we may improve it so far, as to distinguish
ourselves from one another: and so one man may deserve to be
called learned and knowing, in comparison of another that is less so.
But absolutely speaking, the most that any or all of us either know or
can know, is of little consideration. What we know of God is but little;
for as the apostle says, We see through a glass darkly: what we
know of ourselves perhaps is less, and what we know of the world
about us, is not much. “We have seen but a few of God’s works,” and
we understand yet fewer. There are almost an infinite number of
things which we never so much as thought of: and of most things we
conceive very darkly and uncertainly; and there is not one thing from
the greatest to the least, which we do or can understand throughly.
Those that apply their whole study to any one thing, can never come
to the end of that; for not only every science, but every particular of
each has its unmeasurable depths and recesses. ’Tis confest by a
great enquirer into the nature of antimony (as ’tis related by Mr.
Boyle) “That ’tis impossible for one man to understand throughly that
single mineral only.” And if a man can’t understand all of so little,
how little must he understand of all? Suppose farther, that all the
knowledge of all the learned were put together, it would weigh but
light. For what one art or science is there, that is brought to any
tolerable perfection? And if the common stock be so little, how small
a pittance is it that must fall to every particular man’s share? And
where is that man, who after all his poring and studying, is able to
answer all the questions, I will not say which God put to Job, but
which may be asked him by the next idiot he meets?
 5. ’Tis superfluous, as well as endless, to display the particulars
of our ignorance; though indeed, when all accounts are cast up, that
will be found to be our best knowledge. This only in general, our life
is so short, our progress in learning so slow, and learning itself so
long and tedious, and what we do or can know so very little, that the
sceptics had much more reason to conclude from the disability of our
faculties, and the slightness of our attainments, than from the
uncertainty and instability of truth, that there is no knowledge.

*6. But, Secondly, If it were possible for us to attain a

considerable measure of knowledge, yet our life is so short and so
encumbered, that we could make but little of the enjoyment of it. All
the morning of our days is spent in the preliminaries of learning, in
mastering words and terms of art, wherein there is nothing but toil
and drudgery. And before we can taste any of the fruits of the tree of
knowledge, before we can relish what is rational, our sun is got into
the meridian, and then it presently begins to decline, and our
learning with it. Our light, our strength, and our time make haste to
consume; nothing increases now but the shadows, that is, our
ignorance and darkness of mind; and while we consider and look
about us, the sun sets, and all is concluded in the dark shadow of
death. But often the sun is intercepted by a cloud before it sets, and
we live backward again, grow weak and childish, silly and forgetful,
and unlearn faster than we learned. Or if it chance to shine bright to
the last, then we grow too wise for ourselves, and reject the greatest
part of what we had learned before, as idle and insignificant.
 *7. Thirdly, There is no necessity of being so wonderfully learned
and knowing here. ’Tis neither necessary, as enjoined by God, nor
as a means to any considerable end. We can be good and we can
be happy without it. And lest any advantages in our after-state
should be alledged, this makes it more unnecessary than any
consideration besides. For though we are never so unlearned now,
yet if we know enough to do our duty, we shall in a short time arrive
at such a degree of knowledge as is requisite to our supreme
perfection, to which our present learning cannot add, and which our
present ignorance will not diminish. Perhaps not immediately upon
our discharge from the body, though even then there must be a vast
enlargement of our understanding; but doubtless, when we are
admitted to the vision of God, we shall then commence
instantaneously wise and learned, and be fully possest of the tree of
knowledge, as well as of the tree of life. For then that glass, through
which we now see darkly, shall be laid aside, and the field of truth
shall be clearly displayed before us. And though even then there
shall be degrees of knowledge, yet the variety of this dispensation
shall not proceed by the degree of our knowledge in this life, but by
another measure. For,

8. Fourthly, Though there is no necessity of our being so learned

and knowing, yet there is of our being good and virtuous. This is
necessary, both, as commanded by God, and as a means of our final
perfection. And besides, ’tis necessary now, there being no other
opportunity for it. If we don’t know here, we may know hereafter, and
infallibly shall, if we are but good here. But if we are not good here,
we shall neither be good, happy, nor knowing hereafter. The main
opportunity for knowledge is after life; the only opportunity of being
good is now: and if we take care to improve this, we are secure of
the other; but if this is neglected, all is lost. This therefore is
indispensably necessary; and ’tis the only thing that is so: and ’tis
necessary now; necessary not only to our happiness in general, but
also to our intellectual happiness in particular. For,
 9. Lastly, Thus stands the case between God and man. Man was
made in a state of innocence and perfection, in perfect favour and
communion with God, his true good, and in a capacity so to
continue. From this excellent state he wilfully fell, and by his fall so
disabled himself, that he could not by his own strength repent, and
so provoked God, that though he could have repented, yet he could
not have been pardoned, without satisfaction made to the divine
justice. This satisfaction man was not able to make, nor any other
creature for him. Whereupon God in great mercy ordained a
mediator, his own Son, God and man, between himself and his
lapsed creature; who by the sacrifice of himself should effect two
things, answerable to the double necessity of man: first, make
repentance available, which otherwise would not have been so; and,
secondly, merit grace for him, that he might be able to repent. And
this is what is meant by the restoration or redemption of man, which
thus far is universal and unconditional.

10. But still, notwithstanding all that this Mediator hath done for
him, man is only so far restored, as to be put into a pardonable
reconcileable state: he is yet only in a capacity or possibility of
pardon and reconciliation, which is then, and then only, reduced to
act, when he truly believes, i. e. with such a faith as is productive of
all inward and outward holiness; with which he may, without which
he cannot be saved, notwithstanding Christ hath died to save him.
For the design of his death was not to make holiness unnecessary,
but to make it available: not to procure a privilege of being saved
without it, but that we might be saved with it. If this qualification be
wanting, we shall be so far from being any thing advantaged from
the redemption purchased by our Mediator, that we shall be
accountable for it, to the great aggravation both of our guilt and
misery. It therefore highly concerns man to improve with all diligence
this great and only opportunity, of adorning his mind with all Christian
perfections; since with these, he may be happy, in all his capacities,
and without them, he shall not only fall into a state of unutterable
misery, but be also accountable for the possibility he had of escaping
it, for perversely neglecting so great salvation, so glorious an
opportunity of being saved.
 11. These things being premised concerning the present state of
man: First, That he can know but very little; Secondly, That the
enjoyment of that little in a short and encumbered life, is by no
means answerable to the labour of acquiring it; Thirdly, That there is
no necessity of such a deal of learning and knowledge, either as to
this world or the next, and that ere long he shall have his fill of
knowledge in the beatific vision, one glance whereof shall instruct
him more than an eternal poring on books, and undistinguish the
greatest doctor from the most ignorant peasant; Fourthly, That there
is an absolute necessity of his being holy, this being the condition not
only of his happiness in general, but also of the accomplishment of
his understanding in particular: and that now is the only opportunity
for it: Lastly, That the attainment of happiness upon this condition,
was the purchase of his Saviour’s death, who has also merited grace
for his assistance in the performance of it; which if he neglect, he
shall not only miss of happiness, but also be answerable for so dear
an opportunity of gaining it: from these premises, it will, I think, follow
with no less than mathematical evidence.

12. First, That knowledge is not the thing for which God designed
man in this station, nor consequently the end of his bestowing upon
him those intellectual powers which he has.

Secondly, That the end for which God did design man in this
station, and the reason why he bestowed those powers upon him
was, that he might so serve him here, as to be rewarded with perfect
knowledge hereafter: And, Thirdly, That the principal care and
concern of man, both for his own interest, and out of compliance with
the design of God, ought to be, to live a Christian life, to accomplish
the moral part of his nature, to subdue his passions, to wean himself
from the love of the world, to study purity of heart and life, in one
word, “To perfect holiness in the fear and love of God.” And in
particular, that he ought to pursue knowledge no farther than as ’tis
conducive to virtue.
 *13. This therefore is the measure to be always observed, in our
prosecution of knowledge. We are to study only, that we may be
good, and consequently to prosecute such knowledge only as has
an aptness to make us so, that which the apostle calls, The truth
which is after godliness. Whatever knowledge we prosecute beside
this, or further than ’tis conducive to this end, though it be, absolutely
considered, never so excellent and perfective of our understanding,
yet with respect to the present posture and station of man, ’tis a
culpable curiosity, an unaccountable vanity, and only a more solemn
and laborious way of being idle and impertinent.

14. And this will be found, if well examined, to be nothing different

from the censure of the wise preacher, I gave my heart to know
wisdom, says he, and I perceived, that this also is vanity and
vexation of spirit. Not that he now first applied himself to the study of
wisdom. No, he had been inspired with that before, and by the help
of it had discovered the vanity of all other things. But that wisdom
which saw thro’ all other things, did not as yet perceive the vanity of
itself. He therefore now gave his heart to know wisdom, that is, to
reflect upon it, and to consider whether this might be excepted from
his general censure, and struck out of the scroll of vanities. And
upon deep reflection, he found that it could not, and that even this
also was as much a vanity as any of the rest. Not that this
proposition is to be understood absolutely, but with respect to the
present posture of man. Neither can it be understood of all
knowledge even in this life; some knowledge being necessary to
qualify him for happiness in the next. It must therefore be understood
of all that knowledge, which contributes not to that great end. So that
with these two necessary limitations, the sense of it is plainly this,
that to man in this present juncture, all knowledge which does not
contribute to the interest of his after-state, is vanity and vexation of
spirit.
 *15. For to what purpose should we study so much, since after all
we can know so little? Since our life is as much too short for enjoying
that little knowledge we have, as for compassing what we would
have; and withal, since there lies no manner of obligation or
necessity upon us to do thus? But (which is what I would most of all
inculcate) to what purpose imaginable should we be so vehement in
the pursuit of learning, of any learning but what is of use to the
conduct of life, considering these two things, First, That ’tis but to
stay a little while, and we shall have all that knowledge gratis, which
we so unsuccessfully drudge for here, to the neglect of more
important exercises; and, Secondly, That there is such an absolute
necessity of being good, and that this short uncertain life is the only
time for it, which if neglected, this great work must be undone for
ever. Upon the former consideration, this studious bookish humour,
is like laying out a great sum of money, to purchase an estate which,
after one weak, dropping life will of course fall into hand. Upon the
latter, ’tis as if a man that was riding post upon business of life and
death, should, as he passes through a wood, stand still to listen to
the singing of a nightingale, and so forget the only business of his
journey.

16. ’Tis most certain, the cases here supposed are as great
instances of folly as can well be conceived. And yet (however it
comes to pass that we are not sensible of it,) ’tis equally certain that
we do the very same, that we are too much concerned in the
application; and that to most of us it may be truly said, Thou art the
man!
 17. For what difference is there between him who now labours
and toils for that knowledge, which in a little time he shall be easily
and fully possessed of, and him that dearly buys an estate, which
would otherwise come to him after a short interval? Only this; that he
who buys the estate, though he might have spared his money,
however gets what he laid it out for. His expence indeed was
needless, but not in vain. Whereas he that drudges in the pursuit of
knowledge, not only toils for that which in a short time he shall have,
and in abundance, but which after all he can’t compass, and so
undergoes a vain as well as needless labour.

*18. Again, What difference is there between him, who when he

is upon business of life and death, shall alight from his horse, and
stand to hear a nightingale sing, and him who having an eternity of
happiness to secure, and only this point of time to do it in, shall yet
turn virtuoso, and set up for learning and curiosity? ’Tis true the
nightingale sings well, and ’twere worth while to stand still and hear
her, were I disengaged from more concerning affairs; but not when I
am upon life and death. And so knowledge is an excellent thing, and
would deserve my study and time, had I any to spare; but not when I
have so great an interest as that of my final state depending upon
the good use of it. My business now is not to be learned, but to be
good.
 *19. For is my life so long, am I so over-stocked with time, or is
my depending interest so little, or so easily secured, that I can find
leisure for unnecessary curiosities? Is this conduct agreeable to the
present posture of man, whose entrance into this world, and whose
whole stay in it is purely in order to another state? Or would any one
imagine this to be the condition of man by such a conduct? Shall a
prisoner, who has but a few days allowed him to make a preparation
for his trial, spend that little opportunity in cutting and carving, and
such like mechanical contrivances? Or would any one imagine such
a man to be in such a condition, near a doubtful trial of life and
death, whom coming into a prison he should find so employed? And
yet is there any thing more absurd in this, than to have a man, who
has so great a concern upon his hands, as the preparing for eternity,
all busy and taken up with quadrants and telescopes, furnaces,
syphons and air-pumps?

20. When we would expose any signal impertinence, we

commonly illustrate it by the example of Archimedes; who was busy
in making mathematical figures on the sands of Syracuse, while the
city was stormed by Marcellus, and so, tho’ particular orders were
given for his safety, lost his life by his unseasonable study. Now, I
confess there was absurdity enough in this instance, to consign it
over to posterity: but had Archimedes been a Christian, I should
have said, that the main of his impertinence did not lie here, in being
mathematically employed when the enemy was taking the city, but in
laying out his thoughts and time in so unconcerning a study, while he
had no less a concern upon him, than the securing his eternal
interest, which must be done now or never. Nothing certainly is an
impertinence if this be not, to hunt after knowledge in such a juncture
as this!
 21. Many other proceedings in the conduct of life, are
condemned as vanity and impertinence, though not half so
inconsistent with the character of man, nor so disagreeable to his
present posture. The pens of moral writers have been all along
employed against them who spent their short and uncertain lives,
which ought to be spent in pursuing an infinitely higher interest, in
gaping up and down after honour and preferments, in long and
frequent attendances at court, in raising families, in getting estates,
and the like. These are condemned not only for their particular
viciousness, as crimes of ambition and covetousness, but for what
they have all in common, as they are misspendings of time, and
unconcerning employments.

22. Now I would fain know, whether any of these be more

expensive of our time, more remote from the main business of life,
and consequently more impertinent, than to be busily employed in
the niceties and curiosities of learning? And whether a man that
loiters away six weeks in court-attendances, be not every whit as
accountably employed, as he that spends the same time in solving a
mathematical question, as Mr. Des Cartes in one of his epistles
confesses himself to have done? Why should the prosecution of
learning be the only thing excepted from the vanities and
impertinences of life?
 23. And yet so it is. All other unconcerning employments are
cried down merely for being so, as not consistent with the present
state of man, with the character he now bears. This alone is not
content with the reputation of innocence, but stands for positive merit
and excellence. To say a man is a lover of knowledge, and a diligent
enquirer after truth, is thought almost as great an encomium as you
can give him; and the time spent in the study, though in the search of
the most impertinent truth, is reckoned almost as laudably employed
as that in the chapel. ’Tis learning only that is allowed (so
inconsistent with itself is human judgment) not only to divide, but to
devour the greatest part of our short life; and that is the only thing
which with credit and public allowance stands in competition with the
study of virtue: nay, by the most is preferred before it, who had rather
be accounted learned than pious.

*24. But is not this a strange competition? We confess that

knowledge is a glorious excellence. Yet rectitude of will is a far
greater excellence than brightness of understanding: and to be good,
is a more glorious perfection than to be wise and knowing, this being
if not the only, certainly the principal difference between an angel
and a devil. ’Tis far better, to use the expression of Mr. Poiret, like an
infant without much reasoning, to love much, than like the devil, to
reason much without love.

25. But suppose knowledge were a more glorious excellence

than it is; suppose it were a greater perfection than virtue; yet still
this competition would be utterly against reason; since we can’t have
the former now in any measure, and shall have it hereafter without
measure: but the latter we may have now (for we may love much tho’
we cannot know much) and can’t have it hereafter. Now the question
is, whether we ought to be more ♦ sollicitous for that intellectual
perfection, which we can’t have here and shall have hereafter; or
that moral perfection, which we may have here, and cannot have
hereafter? And I think we need not consult an oracle, or conjure up a
spirit, to be resolved.
 ♦ “solicitious” replaced with “sollicitous” for consistency

*26. This consideration alone is sufficient to justify the measure

we have prescribed for our intellectual conduct, that we ought to
prosecute knowledge no farther than as it conduces to virtue: and
consequently, that whenever we study to any other purpose, or in
any other degree than this, we are unaccountably, impertinently, I
may add, sinfully imployed. For this is the whole of man, To fear God
and keep his commandments, the whole of man in this station
particularly, and consequently this ought to be the scope of all his
studies and endeavours.
 27. And accordingly it is observable, that the scripture, whenever
it makes mention of wisdom, with any mark of commendation,
always means by it either religion itself, or such knowledge as has a
direct influence upon it. Remarkable to this purpose is the 28th
chapter of Job; where having run thro’ several instances of natural
knowledge, he adds, But where shall wisdom be found, and where is
the place of understanding? As much as to say, that in none of the
other things mentioned, did consist the wisdom of man. Then it
follows, Man knoweth not the price thereof, neither is it found in the
land of the living. The depth saith, It is not in me, and the sea saith, It
is not in me. Not in the depths of learning, nor in the recesses of
speculation, Seeing it is hid from the eyes of all living. Destruction
and death say we have heard of the fame thereof with our ears: as
much as to say, that after this life, and then only, unless perhaps
about the hour of death, men begin to have a true sense and lively
relish of this wisdom. But in the mean time, God understandeth the
way thereof, and he knoweth the place thereof. And unto man he
said, Behold, the fear of the Lord that is wisdom, and to depart from
evil, that is understanding! To man he said: had it been to another
creature, suppose an angel, in a state of security and confirmation,
he would perhaps have recommended for wisdom the study of
nature, and the arcana of philosophy. But having to do with man, a
probationary, unfixed creature, that shall be either happy or
miserable eternally, according as he demeans himself, in this short
time of trial, the only wisdom he advises to such a creature in such a
station, is to study religion and a good life.

28. From authority let us descend to example: and two I would

particularly recommend, of men both eminently wise and learned; I
mean Moses and St. Paul. The latter professedly declares, I
determine to know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified. And
the former complaining of the gross ignorance of his people, breaks
out into this passionate wish. O that they were wise! that they
understood this, that they would consider their latter end!
 29. Moses had been bred a scholar as well as a courtier, and was
well instructed in all the secrets of philosophy. And besides the
advantages of Pharaoh’s court, he had God himself for his tutor; he
had conversed personally with his maker, and therefore must needs
be supposed to know what was true wisdom. But he does not make
it consist in courtly education, or the mysteries of philosophy; but in
considering our latter end. He wishes that his people were wise; and
to this end does not wish, that they were as well-bred, or as learned
as himself, but only that they understood this, this one thing, that
they would consider their latter end. This he makes the summary
and abstract of all wisdom. Not unlike Plato, who defines philosophy,
the theory of death.

30. And here, if a short digression may be dispensed with, I

would observe, how much Plato is in the right, and what an excellent
part of wisdom it is, to consider death seriously. To make this
distinctly appear, I shall shew first, that the consideration of death is
the most proper exercise for a wise man, and secondly, that it is the
most compendious way of making him wise that is not so.

31. First, It is the most proper exercise for a wise man. Wisdom
consists in a due estimation of things; which then are duly estimated,
when they are rated, both as they are in themselves, and as they are
in relation to us. If they are great and extraordinary in themselves,
they deserve to be considered for their own sakes; if they nearly
relate to us, they deserve to be considered for ours. And on both
these accounts, death and its consequences, are highly deserving a
wise man’s thoughts.

32. For, first, they are in themselves great and extraordinary

transactions, and as such, deserve the attentive consideration, even
of a stander by, of any other indifferent being, suppose an angel;
even though he were no otherwise concerned in it, than as ’tis a
great event, a noble and wonderful scene of providence. On this
single account, death is as fit a subject for the contemplation of a
wise man, as any in nature.
 33. Or if there be within the sphere of nature, things of a greater
appearance, yet there is none wherein man is so nearly concerned.
Since on this depends his eternal happiness or ruin. Nothing
deserves so much to be considered by him, whether therefore we
regard the greatness of the thing itself, or its greatness with respect
to us, the consideration of death is as proper an exercise as a wise
man can be employed in.

34. And as ’tis so fit an employment for him that is wise already,
so, secondly, it is the most compendious way of making him wise
that is not so. For all wisdom is in order to happiness; and to be truly
wise, is to be wise unto salvation. Whatever knowledge contributes
not to this, is quite besides the mark. It is, as the apostle calls it,
Science falsely so called. The knowledge itself is vain, and the study
of it impertinent.

35. Now the only way to happiness is a good life; and

consequently all wisdom being in order to happiness, that is the true,
and the only true wisdom, that serves to the promoting it. That
therefore is the most compendious way of making a man wise, which
soonest makes him good. And nothing does this so soon and so
well, as the serious and habitual consideration of death. And
therefore says the wise man, remember death and corruption, and
keep the commandments: The shortest compendium of holy living
that ever was given. As if he had said, many are the admonitions of
wise and good men, for the moral conduct of life. But would you
have a short and infalible direction? Remember death and
corruption. Do but remember this, and forget all other rules if you
will, and your duty if you can.
 36. And what is here remarked by one wise man, is consented to
by all. Hence that common practice among the antients, of placing
sepulchres in their gardens, and of using that celebrated motto,
Memento mori. Hence that modern as well as antient custom, of
putting emblems of mortality in churches and other public places: by
all which is implied, that the consideration of death is the greatest
security of a good life. Indeed what other considerations do by parts,
this does at a blow. It at once defeats the world, the flesh, and the
devil. For how can the world captivate him, who seriously considers
that he is a stranger in it, and shall shortly leave it? How can the
flesh insnare him, who has his sepulchre in his eye, and reflects on
the cold lodging he shall have there? And how can the devil prevail
on him, who remembers that he shall die, and then enter on an
♦ unchangeable state of happiness or misery, according as he has
either resisted, or yielded to his temptations? Of so vast
consequence is the constant thinking upon death, above all other,
even practical meditation: and so great reason had Moses for
placing the wisdom of man in the consideration of his latter end.

♦ “unchangable” replaced with “unchangeable” for

consistency

*37. But to return. I now persuade myself, that from the character
of man, and his present circumstances, as well as from divine
authority, it evidently appears, that however natural our desire of
knowledge is, this appetite is to be governed, as well as those that
are sensual; that we ought to indulge it only so far, as may tend to
the conducting our lives, and the fitting us for that happiness which
God hath promised, not to the learned, but to the good: and that if it
be gratified to any other purpose, or in any other measure than this,
our curiosity is impertinent, our study immoderate, and the tree of
knowledge still a forbidden plant.
 38. And now having stated the measure of our affection to, and
enquiry after learning and knowledge, it remains to be considered,
how much ’tis observed in the general conduct of our studies. ’Tis
plain, it is not observed at all. For these two things are notorious:
First, That very little of what is generally studied, has any tendency
to living well here or happily hereafter. And, Secondly, That these
very studies which have no religious influence upon life, do yet
devour the greatest part of it. The best and most of our time is
devoted to dry learning; this we make the course of our study, the
rest is only by the by. And ’tis well if what is practical or devotional,
can find us at leisure upon a broken piece of a Sunday or holiday.
The main current of our life runs in studies of another nature, that
don’t so much as glance one kind ♦aspect upon good living. Nay, ’tis
well if some of them don’t hinder it. I am sure so great and so good a
man as St. Austin thought so, who speaking of the institution and
discipline of his youth, has these remarkable words, “I learnt in those
things many useful words; but the same might have been learnt in
matters that are not vain: and that indeed is the safe way, wherein
children ought to be trained up. But wo unto thee thou torrent of
custom! Who is able to resist thee! How long will it be before thou art
dried up? How long wilt thou roll along the sons of Eve, into a great
and formidable sea, which they can hardly pass over? Have I not, in
obedience to thee, read of Jupiter thundring and fornicating at the
same time? And yet, O thou hellish torrent, the sons of men are still
tossed in thee, and are invited by rewards to learn these things! The
pretence indeed is, that this is the way to learn words, and to get
eloquence and the art of persuasion. As if we might not have known
these words, Golden Shower, lap, the temple of heaven, without
reading of Jupiter’s being made a precedent for whoring? This
immorality does not at all help the learning of the words: but the
words greatly encourage the committing the immorality. Not that I
find fault with the words themselves; they are pure and choice
vessels: but with that wine of error, which in them is handed and
commended to us by our sottish teachers. And yet unless we drank
of it, we were beaten, nor had we any sober judge to appeal to. And
yet, I, O my God, in whose presence I now securely make this
recollection, willingly learnt these things, and like a wretch delighted