hat matter). In fact we are not
concerned with the question here more than to give it passing
attention.

If "classic" cookery is dying nowadays, if it cannot reassert itself
that would be a loss to mankind. But this classic cookery system has
so far only been the sole and exclusive privilege of a dying
aristocracy. It seems quite in order that it should go under in the
great _Goetterdaemmerung_ that commenced with the German peasants wars
of the sixteenth century, flaring up (as the second act) in the French
revolution late in the eighteenth century, the Act III of which drama
has been experienced in our own days.

The common people as yet have never had an active part in the
enjoyment of the classic art of eating. So far, they always provided
the wherewithal, and looked on, holding the bag. Modern hotels,
because of their commercial character, have done little to perpetuate
it. They merely have commercialized the art. Beyond exercising
ordinary salesmanship, our _maitres d'hotel_ have not educated our
_nouveaux riches_ in the mysteries and delights of gastronomy.
Hotelmen are not supposed to be educators, they merely cater to a
demand. And our new aristocracy has been too busy with limousines,
golf, divorces and electricity to bemourn the decline of classic
cookery.

Most people "get by" without the benefit of classic cookery,
subsisting on a medley of edibles, tenaciously clinging to mother's
traditions, to things "as she used to make them," and mother's methods
still savor of Apicius. Surely, this is no sign of retrogression but
of tenacity.

The only fundamental difference between Roman dining and that of our
own times may be found in these two indisputable facts--

(First) Devoid of the science of agriculture, without any advanced
mechanical means, food was not raised in a very systematic way; if it
happened to be abundant, Roma lacked storage and transportation
facilities to make good use of it. There never were any food supplies
on any large, extensive and scientific scale, hence raw materials, the
wherewithal of a "classic" meal, were expensive.

(Second) Skilled labor, so vital for the success of any good dinner,
so imperative for the rational preparation of food was cheap to those
who held slaves.

Hence, the culinary conditions of ancient Rome were exactly the
opposite of today's state of affairs. Then, good food was expensive
while good labor was cheap. Now, good food is cheap while skilled
labor