A record of the eighteenth century’s new taste
In 1771, Vercelli saw the publication of La Cuciniera Piemontese che insegna con facil metodo le migliori maniere di acconciare le vivande sì in grasso che in magro secondo il nuovo gusto. The catalogue record at the Biblioteca Gastronomica di Academia Barilla describes a volume of 134 pages and names Beltramo Antonio Re as its publisher and printer.
This is not a collection of popular Piedmontese recipes in the modern sense. Rather, the book belongs to a period when French culinary models were being translated, adapted and circulated within Piedmont’s publishing world. That exchange of knowledge is precisely what makes it a valuable source for the history of regional cooking.
A WAY TO READ THE BOOKTHE WORDS ON THE TITLE PAGEA culinary tradition does not emerge in isolation: it also takes shape through encounters with other traditions, adapting and transforming them.
‘In grasso’, ‘in magro’, ‘new taste’
The words in the title reveal something of the society of the time. The distinction between ‘in grasso’ and ‘in magro’ preparations refers to the days of abstinence prescribed by the religious calendar, which had a practical influence on meal planning. The phrase ‘new taste’, meanwhile, evokes the renewal of eighteenth-century European cooking and the authority acquired by French gastronomy.
These expressions help us read the cookbook as a cultural document: they shed light not only on what people cooked, but also on how cooking was taught and what its intended readers expected.
AN ATTRIBUTION TO HANDLE WITH CAREWho was the ‘female cook’?
The title chooses a female figure, the ‘cuciniera’, rather than a male cook. This is an interesting detail for studying representations of domestic work and the readership of cookbooks. It does not, however, prove that the text was written by a woman: the work is anonymous, and the identity of its author is not known with certainty.
Distinguishing the book’s editorial presentation from its author’s biography avoids a compelling but historically unproven claim.