oraklet

steve, "the use of acid in food and the French being replete with wine, and then at some point tomatoes, incorporated acid into their cooking and that allowed the food to have a certain texture and velvety quality to it that the foods of other countries didn't have." heureka! or as you have said many times: "it tastes better."

right, during the early romantic era, peasants were a la mode. so, some kind of influence from their simple cuisine would be felt in the higher circles. one of many reasons for grande cuisine developing into haute cuisine. and we shouldn't forget moliere's play, "the bourgeois wishing to be a nobleman" or what ever it is called in english. shows, perhaps, yet another reason. finally, cuisine grande mere seems like a mix of haute and farmers/peasants/fishermens cuisines. it went both ways, class wise. which is the same as saying that hardcore p-ism must be revised.

been doing some work and had a cup of semi-espresso. feel better now. ready for the challenge. ok, let's take a look at demographics. in the spirit of plotniskiism, i do not know the exact figures, so i'll have to rely of what i remember from diverse sources. france england 1748: nobility,very wealthy landowners 2% 2% armed forces 5% 5% industrial workers 1% 2% peasants, fishermen 76% 25% independant farmers 2% 40% capitalists, bourgeois 2% 8% petits bourgeois 4% 12% state bureaucrats, church 8% 3% 1788: nobility,very wealthy landowners 2% 2% armed forces 5% 5% industrial workers 5% 10% peasants, fishermen 70% 60% capitalists, bourgeois 4% 10% petits bourgeois 6% 15% state bureaucrats, church 8% 3% 1828: nobility,very wealthy landowners 1% 2% armed forces 8% 5% industrial workers 8% 18% peasants, fishermen 10% 42% independant farmers 42% ? capitalists, bourgeois 8% 12% petits bourgeois 11% 18% state bureaucrats, church 12% 3% now, this is kind of guesswork. but the relative figures can't be all that wrong, and they tell a story of very different social developments. as well as different wealth distribution. add this to all the wonderful facts presented on various threads, and the background of cuisine grande mere is explained. as well, i think, as its excellence. and now i'll leave it to the worthy academicians to pluck me apart edit: this came out as a mess. i hope it can be dechyphered bouillabaisse = bouillir a baisse (-feu)

oh, it was meant as a summary. "So the peasants had from 1792 on wards to develope their cuisine so that it could be picked up by chefs in the mid-nineteenth century?"... ...is not necessarily implied. of course haute cuisine as well as grande mere must be the outcome of several sources: beheaded employers relatively wealthy middle class farmers cuisine (not peasants.) - or did independant farmers not exist in pre-revolution france? of not, plotniskiism faces a grave challenge. whichever way you turn it, there's the problem of explaining what caused c. grande mere. my head is spinning

wasn't the rose wars, was it?

that was scary reading, the link. but weren't these times of war (against england)? things must have been equally scary in northern england and scotland during the rose wars(?). anyway, i see that now the term peasant has been defined for us. thanks. this leads me to try to do my own summing up on the periods in question. 1) peasants in france were in a poor state up till the revolution. at this time, france was the center of grande cuisine (or whatever it should be called). 2) post-revolution peasants became farmers (well, not all, but most, it seems). state bureaucrats spread all over the country. development of cuisine grande mere/haute cuisine/gastronomie/restaurants. 3) in england the opposite social development took place during late 17th c. and first half of 18th c. traditional farmers cuisine more or less devastated (?). haute cuisine in upper class homes/restaurants/clubs 4) victorian era, england. how can you enjoy food with a stiff upper lip? as usual with my summaries, this is most unscientifical and unacademical, but it deals fairly, i think, with both plotnickian theories and the detailed research of a number of highly qualified academicians. am i in for some spanking?

"Steve - there is a big blue wobbly thing at the bottom of Europe full of fish," and "Do you favour peasant cooking as the key origin of more developed cuisine or do you beleive that specific dishes may have evolved from a number of different sources?" there you go again, trying to make a caricature of true plotnickiism.

wilf and adam, these threads are perfect examples of "les detailles qui tuent". spinoffs on spinoffs. maybe it's only because i'm not very knowledgeable in cooking history, but it seems to me that the questions on the other threads were answered well enough without there being an obvious need of further threads and details en masse. interesting as they may be (and are). i also feel that the anger on behalf of accademia could have been spared, as it has resulted in ill-placed sarcasm and patronizing. ill-placed not least because on some occasions you have yourselves been as muddleheaded as have we less enlightened, but also because it has in some cases forced some into positions that they did not, perhaps, really wish to defend. as i see it, john whiting has been at one time levelheaded and knowing. thanks a lot!

white bread, margerine, a mild danish cheese and - strawberry jam. eaten by at least 50% af the danish population. mostly at breakfast. it is absolutely disgusting.

oh. i stand corrected. thanks you, nina and simon. and i may have to take another look at the indian recipes hidden away somewhere among my cook books.

indian cooking, when done the real way, is very complex and time consuming. so, i don't make real indian meals, only very plain curries. i started out, of course, with the powders, then one day found an indian store with allmost a hundred different pastes. i began using patak's curries, and slowly came to making my own curries. but the kids still prefer it to be based on the powder, only with some coriander and cumin plus canelle(?) and cloves, thus hinting at a rogan josh. a real rogan josh is fantastic. i have made it once for a globetrotting friend who had not been to india for a while...he was very polite in his critique.

soba, i think you're right about the andalucia gazpacho. and chili is not needed, as the raw onion and garlic will give it lots of bite. just made it a week ago, during our heat wave. delicious with my (brag, brag) homemade bread. "it is verry estrrong, with lots of garrlic"

it is great fun reading the answers. they are informative, and besides they show how rich you guys are! for me, 4$ would be the limit of cheap, or everyday, wine. and at that price i drink red ventoux or northern italian, with, as it was said, low tanins. white wine is alsace. but i would love to have morgon and sancerre as everyday wine!

i'm so terribly relieved to see that rice is a common problem. i always thought it was supposed to be easy, and it made me feel absolutely stupid.

hey, steve, what is "the whole matjes herring phenomenon"? as a true dane, i've been eating herring and stinking cheese for most of my life. have the dutch tourist board now taken the poor herrings as hostages?

no, no, herring is danish... er swedish... oh, forget it

"If power and dominance were a key criteria in the rise of national cuisine, why did not Dutch food emerge during the period Holland was so powerful?" power and dominance are not , i believe, in itself a key criteria etc. but - if at the same time during the days of rivalling kings you've got power, a brilliant court and a tradition of fine dining, well, then you can be sure it was copied along with the political apparatus. it remains a bit strange why the dutch are only known for stilleben and rijstafel.

at that time france was the most powerful state - in europe. england, with her navy and related spinoffs gradually took over the rest of the world in the form of colonies. though not undisputed by france. and it is only with usa dominating world politics after ww2, that english has become the most spoken. and after all, in my childhood, french was still spoken by every diplomat in the world. well, almost.

cakes. desserts. rice. but i'm certain that, one day, i will learn.

"France "the most powerful state in Europe"? When?" right up till the germans had bismarck. you must remember that the reason england may appear strong through most of the second millenium, is that they have allied themselves with the enemies of first france, then spain, then france and last germany. and from the time of maria dei medici 'till louis seize, france was on the lead in every way - except that the beginning of industrialization took place in england.

and a very sweeping statement: dining is truly important to the french, in the sense that what is eaten is important. they are supposed to be able to judge nuances in their food as well as in their language. i think one of their preferred words is "sonctueux"(?). just the way they utter it: tasting. enjoying. catalogue-ing. all wrapped up in the experience. so it may be that it has become a matter of national identity.

"It can't be that the French had a bourgeoisie and the British didn't, any more than that the British had an aristocracy and the French didn't." no, no, no! of course not. but it can't be denied, that france had (and has) a lot more bureaucrats than england. (ah, the onion soup of madame maigret) also, as france was (and is) a more agricultural country than england, the bureaucrats would be distributed in places (like small towns) with a more natural and easy access to fresh agricultural produce - and restaurants. they would know or be related to more farmers, too, thus "being in contact with" the produce. so, to sum up: france being the most powerful state in europe, was on the lead when it came to grand dining up till and perhaps after the revolution. the influence went both socially downwards and geographically outwards, so to say. restaurants, menu a la russe and codification solidified its status and saw the refining of cuisine de grandeur(?) into haute cuisine, and the widespread and relatively well paid bureaucracie/bourgeoisie had its cuisine grande mere, which became the basis of french cooking. meaning that it has now for 200 years used the same techniques and tools, and has been an ever present source of inspiration to chefs in search of the essentials. french dining, having at one time established itself as at the same time the most raffinee and the most basic, has never really been challenged. nice try, isn't it? but perhaps the professionals will be able to tell me that i'm wrong: it may be that the tools and techniques are not the same, and that chefs are (or were) not inspired by la cuisine grande mere. or someone with more precise data on the demographics of france and england can disprove me.

and the difference in those coxes is significant, right macrosan? as is the difference we seem to remember, because once in a while you accidentally find something that actually tastes as it is supposed to, so that you can check your tasting ability! and at least in denmark, we still seem to be at the bottom of the u-curve. today, we have a wider choice than 20 years ago, but fewer peak experiences! and bushey, i'm yellow with envy for your strawberries.

fat guy i tend to agree with steve p., but then, even at my level, which is lower middle class, i'm able to pick the most exotic and strange things. 20 years ago, i'd never heard of avocados, or balsamico, or patak's curries or sushi or... today, there's so much to try and investigate, but i miss some of the things that are lost with mass production. and though all in all i personally eat better than i could have 20 years ago, i can see many who don't. it has become so much easier and cheaper to get a lazy meal. just as it has become easier to be isolated, cause people are not forced to interact socially by solving common problems. life is so easy for us westerners.

most of you guys are americans, and i don't really know how things are over there. BUT: the aspect of seasonal foods was introduced. being able to get, say, strawberries all year round was supposed to be an improvement. i'm sure, though, that it isn't. lets look at strawberries: 1) imported strawb. will have to be robust. so they're grown with that in sight instead of taste. 2) local farmers will tend to compete on price, and will grow the robust strawberries, too. 3) in ten years, everybody will have forgotten how strawberries used to taste. and this is true for apples as well. pears. plums. etc. and i know it's not just my sense of taste that's changed, 'cause my grandma's apples are as good as they were 40 years ago. as for availability, the choice today is enormous if compared to my childhood. a small town supermarket in northern scania is more raffiné than any in copenhagen 20 years ago. i can get very good coffee, pasta, curry pastes, olive oils, provence sausissons secs - but the local produce is poorer (except tomatoes). and i've noticed one thing: the local people are fat. even most kids. i wonder how they eat. oh, and one last thing: when was the last time any of you had a really good apple? strawberry?