True History of Chocolate

  The Coe & Coe book on the True History of Chocolate  is an interesting biography of chocolate from its origins through its spread around the globe and into the mouths of the common people.  Marie found much of it "brief and basic," but I was impressed with how far-reaching it attempted to be.  This book examines issues of class, gender, nationalism, medicine, poison, slavery, religion (both Old World and New), economics, and gastronomy. Like a usual popular biography we get such a wide range of sources. The authors examine personal correspondence, paintings, tracts and treatises, physicians' records, recipe books, the wording of political treaties, lab reports, etc... I found, like Eric notes, the opinion of Robbins to be unduly harsh.  Robbins criticizes the Coes for writing a comic narrative of the conquering of Europe, as if the spread of chocolate was a reverse imperialism.  But I find the main idea of the True History to be that while the technology of making chocolate did not change in any major way from its beginnings through to the industrial revolution, what did change was the attitudes toward and culture surrounding chocolate. The investigation of the changing attitudes and culture is a tall order, and the Coes further complicate it with their organization - looking at Europe and the Americas country-by-country in chapters 5 through 7.   This was a necessary thing, since these nationalistic differences are important, but it did seem to force the book into shallow waters at some points.
  While we are all familiar with chocolate (or the modern form) I found the book particularly enlightening when examining the Maya origin myths like the Popol Vuh, and the Aztec traditions of cacao as money and metaphor for blood in religious rituals.  This would explain why the Aztec elites imbibed chocolate sparingly (literally drinking money, as I believe Carol mentioned).  For the Americas, chocolate held gastronomic value, symbolic value, and economic value.  After the arrival of whites in the Americas the relationship between the conquerors and chocolate began to change.  They preferred to drink it hot rather than cold, they sweetened it with sugar, added familiar spices like cinnamon and pepper, and they used a tool to froth it rather than pouring.  This stripped the symbolism of the commodity and changed its meanings.  Now, in Europe, like sugar, it was viewed as medicine or drug and was fit into the traditional humoral framework.  Or it simply became a symbol of wealth and privilege for the aristocrats (excepting England).
   One discrepancy I noted is that Mintz's Sweetness and Power tells us that the excellent cuisine of the French is based on savory more so than sweet tastes, unlike the English who "damaged" their cooking with sugar. The Coes book explains that in the 18th century the French took chocolate and funneled it into desserts and sweets. [218-219].  Are these ideas at odds, or am I missing a nuance in the arguments?