In James’s entry entitled “Chocolate and British Political History” he muses, “Whether British chocolate importation faced similar regulations as sugar might be of research interest.” Interestingly, in her 1996 critique of Mr. and Mrs. Coe’s work prepared for the Times Literary Supplement, Sidney W. Mintz also mentioned the Coes' apparent lack of awareness of sugar. Clearly Mintz’s own obsession with sugar preempts this observation, but it is an interesting point. She states that, unlike sugar, chocolate cannot be standardized, i.e., “simplified into a chemically pure product.” So while the addition of sugar and other ingredients ultimately makes chocolate a commodity of mass consumption, it still leads a binary existence as both common household item and luxury good which sugar does not.
I was not aware prior to reading the book that the project exemplified by The True History of Chocolate was initiated by Sophie Coe, who passed away before its completion. Thus the inclusion of her husband as organizer, co-author, and contributor. Michael Coe’s work is less food history and more archaeology, which explains the extensive background on chocolate and its Mesoamerican uses and origins. I find the narrative progression of the book appealing in that it moves from the earliest uses of chocolate (or cacao) to its current status as a mass produced, mass consumed product. I agree with both James and Mintz that chocolate's relationship to other commodities like sugar could have been more deeply explored in this book, but I'm not sure if that was the intended goal of its authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment