



Produced by Jeroen Hellingman and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net/ for Project
Gutenberg (This file was produced from images generously
made available by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)









                       THE GOLDEN RULE COOK BOOK

                    SIX HUNDRED RECIPES FOR MEATLESS
                    DISHES. ORIGINATED COLLECTED AND
                    ARRANGED BY M. R. L. SHARPE. NEW
                   EDITION PUBLISHED BY LITTLE, BROWN,
                       AND COMPANY, BOSTON, 1912








        It was Margaret More who said, "The world needs not so
        much to be taught, as reminded." May this book remind
        many of the Love they owe to every living creature.








    And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed,
    which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the
    which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be
    for meat.

    And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air,
    and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there
    is life, I have given every green herb for meat; and it was so.

                                                       Genesis i. 29, 30








CONTENTS


                                           Page

            INTRODUCTION                     11
            THE KITCHEN                      29
            THE DINING ROOM                  35
            SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS              39
            SOUPS                            45
            VEGETABLES                       79
            VEGETABLE COMBINATIONS          167
            NUT DISHES                      177
            RICE, MACARONI, ETC.            185
            CROQUETTES                      197
            TIMBALES AND PATTIES            209
            SAUCES                          217
            EGGS                            231
            CHEESE                          249
            SALADS                          257
            SAVOURIES                       273
            SANDWICHES                      281
            PASTRY, PATTY CASES, ETC.       287
            A FEW HOT BREADS                293
            PLUM PUDDING AND MINCE PIE      299
            MENUS                           303

            INDEX                           315








                Let none falter who thinks he is right.

                                                Abraham Lincoln.








INTRODUCTION


The arranging of this help for those who are seeking to obey the call
to a higher humanitarianism, which is put forth by non-flesh-eating
men and women, has been a labour of love: the labour, the result of
an earnest endeavour to so write the receipts that "the way-faring
woman may not err therein," the love, of a kind whose integrity
may not be questioned, since it has inspired to the never easy task
of going against the stream of habit and custom, and to individual
effort in behalf of the myriads of gentle and amenable creatures,
which an animality that defiles the use of the word has accustomed
man to killing and eating.

The name Vegetarian has come to mean one who abstains from animal
flesh as food; and, as some designation is necessary, it is perhaps
a sufficiently suitable one. This term did not, however, originally
classify those who used a bloodless diet, but is derived from the
Latin <DW25> Vegitus, which words described to the Romans a strong,
vigorous man. The definition of the word Vegitus, as given in
Thomas Holyoke's Latin Dictionary, is "whole, sound, quick, fresh,
lively, lusty, gallant, trim, brave," and of Vegito, "to refresh,
to re-create." Professor Mayor of England adds to these definitions:
"The word vegetarian belongs to an illustrious family; vegetable,
which has been called its mother, is really its niece."

The word has unfortunately become intermingled with various dietetic
theories, but the Vegetarian who is one because his conscience
for one reason or another condemns the eating of flesh, occupies a
very different place in the world of ethics from one who is simply
refraining from meat eating in an effort to cure bodily ills.

Indeed, the dyspeptic frequenting the usual Vegetarian restaurant
has little opportunity to know much about vegetables as food,
the menu being, as a rule, so crowded with various mixtures which
are supposedly "meat substitutes" that vegetables pure and simple
find small place. This book contains no meat substitutes, as such,
but receipts for the palatable preparation of what is called by many
"live foods,"--that is, food which has no blood to shed and does not,
therefore, become dead before it can be eaten.

There will also be found lacking from the index such dishes as
"Vegetarian Hamburg Steak," "Pigeon Pie, Vegetarian style," etc.,
which should repel rather than attract, by bringing to mind what
Bernard Shaw has graphically spoken of as "scorched carcasses."

It has been proven by myself and my household that flesh eating may
be safely stopped in one day with no injury to health or strength,
and that a table supplied from the receipts in this book can make
those whom it furnishes with food well and strong as far as food can
make them so.

There are many reasons why thoughtful, cleanly, humane people should
not feed upon animals, but there is a surprising deafness to this
fact shown by the majority of those active in humane charities. One
marvels to see hundreds of consecrated workers in session, putting
forth every effort for the enacting of laws for the amelioration of the
sufferings of cattle travelling to slaughter by car and ship, who are
still content to patronise the butcher shop to buy food supplied by
the dead bodies of these tortured victims of a false appetite. Mere
thoughtlessness can make the kindest act cruelly inconsistent, for
I once saw a woman presiding at a meeting held to discountenance the
wearing of aigrettes with a sheaf of them decorating her bonnet. This
looks much like receiving stolen goods while denouncing theft.

It is well to write, and legislate, and pray for better and kinder
treatment of these frightened, thirst-maddened, tortured creatures
on their journey to our tables, but the surest, quickest way to help
(and this can be done even while continuing to work for the alleviation
of their sufferings) is to stop feeding upon them.

In a recent issue of a paper devoted to humane matters there is an
indignant protest against the sufferings endured by crated chickens
in a certain market, and another article deplores the cruelty shown
to turtles in the same place, but when we know the writers of these
protests to be still willing to use these creatures on their tables,
it is not always easy to fully credit their tender-heartedness. In
another such paper there appear from year to year sentimental pictures
and poems extolling the kindliness and virtues of "the cattle upon
a thousand hills," while those same pages print instructions on the
most humane way of slaying them, giving as a reason for the sudden
and painless death described that suffering "poisons the meat."

The favourite phrase, "our four-footed friends," seems rather an
anachronism in the face of our acknowledged relations to them as eater
and eaten, for the phrase indicates a mutual pact of friendship,
which, however well sustained by them, is dishonoured by man; for
even cannibals, we are told, sink no lower than to eat their foes.

The demand for butcher's meat may not seem materially lessened because
I do not eat it, but it is lessened notwithstanding, and I rejoice to
know that in the past seven years my abstinence from flesh must have
resulted in a little less slaughter, and I am glad to have reduced
by even one drop the depth of that ocean of blood. I have heard the
Biblical statement that man was to have dominion over all the earth
quoted as a justification for the eating of the lower animals. We
will some day be so civilised that we will recognise the great truth
that dominion implies care, and guardianship, and protection rather
than the right to destroy.

The first objection voiced against Vegetarianism is not usually
against its principle, but its practice; we are told that the refusal
to eat meat causes inconvenience, and that it is best to "eat what is
set before you, asking no questions for conscience's sake." I could
respect the position of one who literally believed and consistently
acted on this mandate, but where in Christendom can he be found? Few
of us could or would eat the flesh of a pet lamb, or partake knowingly
of horse flesh, or could or would feel called upon to dine on these
lines with the peoples who eat dog, or with so-called cannibals. The
host might have secured, in a broad spirit of hospitality, just the
particular carcass which most pleased his own palate, but courtesy
seldom forces us to eat any flesh other than the sorts to which our
own habits have accustomed us.

There is a well-known story of an American statesman who was reared
by Vegetarian parents in the country, and taken while still a small
boy to dine at a neighbour's. During the progress of the meal a large
platter was borne into the room, on which lay something the like of
which he had not seen on any table. He stared in wonder, and finally
located the resemblance and shouted, "Why, mother, if that isn't a
dead hen!" Habit had not overcome his horror of that particular dead
thing as food, as it would have done had he seen dead hens served as
food all his life.

As to the inconvenience caused my friends when I am at their tables,
I consider it of such small consequence compared to the fact that
even one child should be standing almost knee-deep in blood in some
slaughter-house, working to supply my wants, that it is not worth a
second thought. No one need go hungry from any well-planned dinner,
even though no extra preparation has been made for the non-meat-eating
guest; but if my hostess knows in advance that I do not eat meat,
and wishes to have prepared an especial dish, I give her the benefit
of the doubt, and believe that she is as pleased to do it as I would
be in her place. We like to take a little extra trouble to entertain
our friends, and the thought expended to give others pleasure is
perhaps the real joy of hospitality.

Another class of objector likes to remind us that we take life when we
eat vegetables, or drink, or breathe. A friend, who has since ceased
to consider the unnecessary and cruel slaughtering of thousands of
creatures daily a fit subject for joking, once sent me in raillery a
sonnet which rehearsed the sad death suffered by a cabbage to satisfy
a Vegetarian's selfish cravings. I find no qualms in my own conscience
on this subject, but should I ever come to feel as these over-sensitive
claim I should, I hope I will not then eat even the "innocent cabbage."

Again, if the germs in the water we drink and the air we breathe
do die by reason of our drinking and breathing I endure no
self-condemnation. Man cannot be required to do the impossible by
any Principle of Good, and to do each day what good he is able to do,
to avoid the evil he can avoid, and in every difficulty choose what
he thinks to be the lesser of two evils, is perhaps as much as even
Divine Love expects of him to-day.

It is well to face the unpleasant fact that there are occasions when
in our present state of development it seems necessary to kill in
self-defence, as it were, moths, rats, etc.; but even in this we can
"do our best," and it has been well said