Chocolate Corn.In Illinois a species of millet is grown under this name, which serves as a substitute for coffee, and tastes precisely like weak chocolate, and even resembles it in color. The preparation of a beverage from it is thus described: If we want for our table four pints of chocolate, we take one and a half head of grain, nearly filling the funnel of our coffee-mill, which is about 4 inches wide, and 1 inches high, and grind the kernels a little fine. Having proceeded thus far, we mix the ground substance with two pints of water, and boil it until the starch contained in it forms into a lump the liquid is then passed, to separate it from the grains, through a fine wire sieve or tin colander two pints of sweet milk, from which the cream has been skimmed, and a good table-spoonful of common powdered sugar, and a
little cinnamon, are then added to the decoction. It is now boiled once more, and a most delicious beverage, which is scarcely distinguishable from light chocolate, is ready for use. If you wish to improve it still further, you may add an egg and a little nutmeg.
It seems that the writer to the Scientific American was mistaken – ‘chocolate corn’ is not millet. Nor is ‘corn’ in the sense of maize. ‘Corn’ used to be the generic name for the predominant grain in an area, so in the nineteenth century in England, for example, it meant wheat. As with the citrus confusion outlined in the story a few days ago about ‘Adam’s Apple,’ the common names of many grains and cereals are confusing, but as far as I can gather, chocolate corn is a variety of Sorghum (S. bicolor.)
A short comment in another article, from 1826, is illuminating:
S. Bicolor, commonly called Chocolate-corn, is sometimes cultivated, as a matter of curiosity, and has been used as a sort of substitute for chocolate,—which, like rye-coffee, may answer for those who cannot obtain better; but it is not likely to come into general use.
‘Coffee-corn’ turns out to be another common name for this type of sorghum, indicating that for some nineteenth century consumers it might with proper preparation taste precisely like weak coffee as well as weak chocolate. Or is this a triumph of wishful thinking over actual sensory experience?
Some of the other common names for the plant are illuminating in other ways, so I give you a selection of them for your interest: