Adam Balic

Hmm at the moment there is no formal acceptance of the origin of the word 'curry'. There are several similar words in various Indian languages, but sanskrit isn't one of them. The oldest English collection of recipes is known as 'The Forme of Cury', "Cury" is Middle-English for cooking and is derived from the Old-French, some people have vaguely suggested this as a root. Also the ealiest English mentions of 'Curry' are: 1598 W. PHILLIPS Linschoten 88 (Y.) Most of their fish is eaten with rice, which they seeth in broth, which they put upon the rice, and is somewhat soure..but it tasteth well, and is called Carriel. 1681 R. KNOX Hist. Ceylon 12 They..boyl them [fruits] to make Carrees, to use the Portuguez word, that is somewhat to eat with and relish their Rice. And neither of these references make it clear what the origin of the word is. Be that as it may, the point that I was making earlier is that the curries that are eaten all over Britian now, don't really resemble ealier models. These ealier models were recreations by people returning from India to Britain (the 'Clives' curry powder type curries), where as modern curries developed from immigrants from the Sub-continent setting up curry houses, mostly post-1950's and developing dishs to suit the tastes of the British public. These curries aren't found in Indian either. So the same word but describing different types of preparations.

True. OK, then I wasn't far off-base above after all. There is also another point to consider, which is that the term "curry" covers such a very broad multitude of sins - er, meanings. Even if you stipulate "authentic" (ha!). In the same London you can find both the gawdawful terrible-delicious glop you describe and also some perfectly serious and excellent faithful imports - and linguistically they are all lumped under that same heading of "curry." So it's probably important, in discussing a national propensity toward curry-eating, to specify which forme of cury is in play. I guess what I was trying to get at was simply that though what we now call "curry" may bear practically no resemblance to the "curry" we first encountered or even to the curries of the Raj (my favorite example of curry bastardization being the 1730 Charles Carter version, so smothered in butter that it's a wonder one can taste anything else), still in the mind of the curry eater it bodies forth that sequence of events from an ancestral past in which some intrepid soul tasted a foreign dish, liked it (or was politic enough to pretend to like it!), and forthwith took it unto his bosom and that of his compatriots. I still contend that whether they like it or just think they like it, the British adopters of curry gave nary a thought to its humor balance, 'cos it was "furrin" and exotic and that humor business was oh, just so last century. I think one of the difficulties in comparing older recipes with extant forms is that it is very diffiuclt to get an accurate idea of exactly what the dish (the older one) is actually like. These recipes haven't been written by Delia Smith for instance. Many of them obviously leave out many details that are obvious (amounts for instance), but what about the things that are left out and are not obvious? For instance, this recipe (I have modernised some of the spelling) from "A Proper newe Booke of Cokerye" (mid-16th c.), looks pretty revolting, chicken with grapes (there are numerous variations on this recipe from the time, mostly the spices are altered, but in one lemons/sour oranges are used as the souring agent) "To bake chekins in lyke paest. Take your chickens and season them with a little Ginger and salt, and so put them into your coffin [pie case] and so put in them barberries, grapes or gooseberries, and half a dish of butter, so close them up, and set them in the oven and when they are bake, take the yolks of six eggs and a dishful of verjuice and draw them through a strainer and set it upon a chaffing dish, then draw your baked chekins and put them to this foresaid eggs and verjuice and thus serve them hot." But actually when you examin it closely what you see is that it is really what in Greece would be called 'Chicken with Avgolemono Sauce (lemon juice replaced with verjuice etc). It is actually very good and is improved by the addition of leeks/shallots etc. The point being is that this 'Foreign Greek Dish', isn't actually a stranger to Britian (actually an extant English chicken dish, 'Hindle Wakes' uses a similar lemon sauce). In this way I think that 'curries' are more British ethnic then Indian ethnic. They are specific to the British a palate. Sure the quality of the meat isn't brilliant (OK, it is often very poor), but so has most meat for most people in Britian. Curries were only ever foreign on th surface, closer examination indicates that the are British through and through.

balmagowry - while we are slightly off topic (well we are discussing cook books after all) I shall refrain from Beeton v Dods, other to say that I have not Beeton problem pre-1862 and that pontentially there is a PhD in comparing Ward & Locke's relationship with the Beetons and the modern marketing of certain food celebs. But Humours and Curry is a worthy subject. If one were to pick a date and individual as a culinary historical marker, La Varrene and 1650 are good to go for the begining of 'Modern Cooking' (note: gross over simplification alert). One quickly notes that although the effects were similar in France and England, the circumstances were rather different. Also, one notes that in many English individuals, while there was a rejection of spiceries etc, they keep the voguish obsession with the Galenoid humours. Furthermore, one sees the adoption of the modern cooking philosophy before practical matters such as improvement of the animal types that were been eaten or stoves. I suspect that in these matters people, as ever, where somewhat blind. What things actually taste like is much less important then what people think they taste like. If I went to Digby's for dinner I would skip the mains (unless it was pye) and go straight for dessert (beef boiled for two days does not appeal). The point (!) being that that this new food was inpractical in many ways, but it was what fashionable people wanted or thought they wanted. The same was true for May et al. obviously, his food was just as 'fashionable' in its own time. Humours etc are just the window dressing for justifiaction of the fashionable. Same with curries and accquired palate etc. What is often mis-remembed is that 'curries' are modern. Sure there are 19th C. curries and mention of cury in the 1500's, but these are nto really related to the current British . No real direct linagages for instance. Most curries of are terrible in a delicious type of way. Bad quality pre-cooked chicken/lamb dipped in one of half a dozen standardised sauces. Taste? Palate? Obviously, but fashionable and serving a purpose in its own way as well. Exactly like May's and Varenne's coking in there own turn. The 350 year dominance of the 'prime ingredient' is over, now is the begining of the return of the 'balanced elements'. The 'Curry' is just the for-runner.

This book has detailed instructions on how to acheive the crust, including the potato version you had. Persian food Essentially, the basic form is what you get when you make a pilaw, the bottom layer which is in direct contact with the heat and in butter crisps up to form a crust. As this is so prized in Iran, the dish can be manipulated to get even more crust. Variations on this are: - mix yogurt and egg yolks together with some of the rice, place this in the bottom of the pilaw dish which contains a layer of hot butter. Add the rest of the rice (no yogurt or egg) to the dish and steam until done. - thinly sliced potato placed on bottom of dish, with much butter, rice place on top of this and then steamed. - As potato, but using flatbread. The rice used would not be Jasmine rice traditionally, Basmati is the best choice, unless you have access to some of the Iranian varieties. Rice is par-boiled before the pilaw is made. This doesn't mean using the pre-cooked rice. The book is very good.

No - no, you didn't, and indeed I had noticed that. But I do seem to remember you, somewhere up-thread, referring to the "oldest" cookbook in your collection as being 271 years old; thus exciting a certain amount of openly-expressed reverence for its antiquity which I don't believe you debunked. 271? Well if I said that then I lied, the MacIver is the oldest and it is only ~240 years old. Yes, but Beeton only had a hand in the first edition (not bad if plain) or so, the later versions (which is what 99% of people actually used) by Ward & Lock were Beetonless and in some cases plain nasty (endless stock pots etc). Meg Dods was fictitious figure (still trying to work out who the exact author and if Scott made direct contributions), as were many of the other 'characters', but the food was real enough. On the British Cuisine thread some of the discussion forcussed on where it all went pear shaped, foodwise in Britian, I personally blame some of this on process of 'Industrial Beetonisation' and can imagine an infinely better British food world were it was the fictitious figure of Meg Dods who was made into a British Domestic Food Goddess, and not poor Isabella. As you can imagine, I am privately much annoyed that out of the hugh number of British cook books, it is Beeton that is most often refered to by food writers and food celeb people. Bah to that I say. What is interesting about reading these books is that food, historically speaking, is like people, very complicated that is. As much as people talk about food development in a linear, post-Darwinian, reductionist way, when you read the books, that comes across as a load of old tosh. One only has to compare Fettiplace, May and Digby to see how diverse people were in their eating habits. MacIver one hundred years later was closer to May then to contempory writers down south in many ways. What is also very curious is how the old model of balancing the different elements (humours even) of an individual dish to produce a synergy of flavours etc, that was replaced by the more 'natralistic' focus on enhancing the flavour of one or few elements in a dish, has now become the norm for contempory food in Britian. Why May et al. ate spiced stews, Mr/Mrs/Miss Average Brit now prefers to eat a curry. Is this a result of the British public finally throwing of the shackles of Frenchified German cooking or is it simply the last retreat of the average eater when a prime rib roast, a leg of sweet lamb or even decent chicken has become expensive items for a niche market?

Did I mention "originals"? Only Meg Dodds and MacIver are originals (plus a Mrs Marshall's other recipes), both purchased for £10 in junk shops. The Dodds is an amazing book, much, much more deserving then Beeton. Anthimus has been released by Prospect Books (along with many other facsimile and re-print editions). Many Medieval texts are availble on the net. I love my Robert May. Oh, and I have a re-print of the first English translation of La Varrene's 'French Cook'. I buy the books to use and because I am interested in this period (16-18th C), and what people ate and how they appoach food, as this tells you a great deal about them. Having an idea of what Shakespeare, Pepys and Johnson ate (or at least may have eaten) makes their writing on other subjects more tangible. Who couldn't love Pepys after reading of him taking the time to protect his Parmesan cheese while the Great Fire of London bore down on his home?

Well I needed a few more to go with: "The Accomplisht Cook" by Robert May (1684) "Elinor Fettiplace's Receipt Book" (early late 16th/early 17th century) "Mrs MacIver's Cookery" (1763) Meg Dodds cook book (1829) Medieval Arabic Cooking Often they are cheap on the net or sometimes you get lucky in secondhand places.

Some recent books: "De Observatione Ciborum / On the Observance of Foods" by Anthimus (late Roman/Byzantine authors observations of Northern European cooking. “The Closet of Sir Kenelm Digby Opened” (1669) "The Whole Body of Cookery Dissected" by William Rabisha (1682) “ACTERIA: A Discourse of Sallets” by John Evelyn (1699) “Willian Verrall’s Cookery Book: Master of the White Hart Inn, Lewes (1759) “The Cookery Book of Lady Clark of Tillypronie” (1841-1897) “The Dinner Question or How to dine well and Econimically” by Tabitha Tickletooth (Charles Selby). (mid-19th C)

So no mutton equivalent, makes me wish I was raised in Spain, not Australia.

Interesting. I grew up in a sheep raising family in Australia (not a unique experience) and these were all Merino or Merino X. We slaughtered a sheep maybe once every week, these were generally hoggett (1-2 years of age) or mutton (2 years and above). In general the Merino were considered inferior to the British breeds in terms of meat flavour etc, but this could have much to do with the age of the sheep. Are older sheep eaten in Spain and how are then considered in terms of preference (or are they used in any specific dishes?)?. A 120 Ib sheep would be hoggett or mutton and these do not taste very much like lamb at all. In my experience very young lamb (or kid) cannot be compared in flavour to older lamb as at this stage they are still milk feeding only, the flesh is very pale pink, almost white.

oh thanks. i did have the impression - from reading slater - that it was a little like what forms when chicken or pork caramelizes, or when you make a concentrated stock, all of which can be, as you say, intensely umami. Except that it is made from yeast extract, like Vegemite. The yeast used is not the same yeast that causes thrush etc, so forget about all the pseudo-medical advice that tells you to avoid Marmite if you want to avoid yeast infections.

Also the ease in which various goverments have been complicent in this. I imagine that it difficult to ensure effective central food distribution to 60 million people, so why not give the supermarkets a free hand? Andy - I believe that "premium priced goods to what in fact turns out to be a niche market of food enthusiasts" is more the case. There may be some difussion into the general population, but the goverment statisitcs on food consumption suggest not. Diet has improved in the last 20 years, but it is still poor and well balanced diets using fresh ingredients are still a mark of a higher income bracket.

As class defined by household income, higher income households consume more fresh veg. and fruit then low income households. This is true in 1978 and 1998, however, while consumption trends are similar for both groups over twenty years the amounts consumed per person are very different: Highest income group Fresh green veg. - 371 to 278 grams (1978 to 1998) Other fresh veg. - 481 to 621 grams Fresh fruit - 966 to 1579 grams Lowest income Fresh green veg. - 321 to 181 grams Other fresh veg. - 412 to 355 grams Fresh fruit - 516 to 786 grams Higher income groups eat more fresh chicken as well. I don't think that Delia has made much impact on the lower income groups.

Not really a trend, but from the UK National Statisitic site it is apparent that between 1978 and 1998 per person per week: - Fish consumption went up slightly - Fresh veg. (non-potato) consumption decreased (from 380g/week in 1978 to 245g/week) - Processed veg. (non-potato) consumption remained stable - Beef consumtion decreased dramatically (234g/week to 110g/week) - Chicken consumption increased slightly. - Fresh potato consumption dropped (1243g/week to 715g/week) - processed potato consumption increased (from 71g/week to 200g/week) The number of prepared foods increased dramatically.

Claret is thought to have developed into the modern type wine in the mid 18th century. Cork closures were developed at the beginning of that century, the two points are not un-connected. Cook books from this period use red wine, white wine or claret, so claret was a different style to the more robust Southern reds. So later then Pepsy, Johnson was able to say “He who aspires to be a serious wine drinker, must drink Claret” But wine was only imported bottled from Bordeaux in the begining of the 19th century. So I would think that the modern wine really developed from this point.

Lucy - really lovely photographs. In the image of the four roots, the top left are the famous black turnips? I have always wanted to cook these with a duck, have you cooked them and if so how does their flavour compare to white turnips?

I think you could argue that England's influence on the development of wine over the centuries has been massive. Not least becasue as a wealthy, wine-consuming but (largely) non-wine-producing country, it seems to have been responsible for the creation (or at least the popularisation) of all sorts of fortified wines: port, sherry and madeira spring to mind. And of course there's the old claim that the English invented Champagne... I'd be interested to know how much the need to ship and store wine for markets like England also led to the development of more robust styles of regular wine, intended to be drunk mature rather than fresh. I assume that in the middle ages a lot of the wine of (English) Gascony was exported to England rather than drunk locally. I suppose we'd need to consider how much quality French wine was sold within France compared to the amount exported to England in the period afterwards to form an idea on this (but since much of the exports were smuggled, I don't know if any really indicative figures exist). Any thoughts? At the time when a great volumes of wine were being imported from Bordeaux, the 'claret' was quite different to the modern time. From memory it was a young fresh wine, more a rose then a red and sometimes fortified for shipping stability. Pepys mentions 'an unusaul and very good claret', which may have been one of the modern style. Much of this claret wasn't named either, so it would be difficult to get any real figures relating to export figures.

In part because the food that was in vogue at time wasn't looking to English food for inspiration, but in general more to the French style. I quick look at most mid-late 19th century cook books shows a large amount of Frenchified names, even if the dishes are not. Curry.

Italian law defines '00' flour as having a minimum of 7% protein. That is relatively low and would not generally be classified as a strong flour. As law defines a minimum value, these flours can vary from maker to maker, in general the protein concentration remains low. This information is readily availible. Also flour doesn't have gluten, it contains two proteins that combine to form gluten when kneaded etc. Semolina is commonly used to make pasta. But in the north of Italy soft wheat flour is often used, often for stuffed pasta. The individual that originally asked for advise specifically mentioned that they could not readily get fine semolina flour. So the point of this thread would be give them other options, which most people have. ts ts ts ts..... all the 00 flours that i know of have a gluten content of min 12 % also you find this percentage pretty much everywhere you look. AP flour has a gluten content usually 4 % lower than this ( as i wrote b4) the Gliadin and Glutenin content is very commonly refered to as "gluten content", so this adds nothing new to the discussion. cheers t. Since you have such a personal interest in flour and peoples lack of knowledge about them I suggest that you read the following link: Flour You will find the table of minimum gluten contents of flour quite refreshing and may prompt you to contact your '00' flour supplier. But before this I suggest that you refresh you memory on the definition of a 'minimum content'. Once you do that I can recommend reading the book: "Pasta: The story of a universal food" by Silvano Serventi and Francoise Sabban. It also contains some useful information of pasta and the types of flour used. edit: sorry Johnathan, I didn't see you post. Not nother word I promise.

Darn, I wished I lived in a small Devon village, it sounds idealic. I think there is room for many points of view. The statistic availble indicate that people are eating a much wider range of food stuffs then 20 years ago, but there is also a large increase in the prepared foods and in some respects food is becoming more standardised. Strange really, uniformity in diversity. There is also a range of regional differences, in terms of preferences, eating patterns and consumption levels. Scotland, where I reside, has the lowest per capita consumption of fruit, veg, highest level for soft drinks.

Italian law defines '00' flour as having a minimum of 7% protein. That is relatively low and would not generally be classified as a strong flour. As law defines a minimum value, these flours can vary from maker to maker, in general the protein concentration remains low. This information is readily availible. Also flour doesn't have gluten, it contains two proteins that combine to form gluten when kneaded etc. Semolina is commonly used to make pasta. But in the north of Italy soft wheat flour is often used, often for stuffed pasta. The individual that originally asked for advise specifically mentioned that they could not readily get fine semolina flour. So the point of this thread would be give them other options, which most people have.

Good point Andy. I am lucky enough to be able to get heirloom apples, many different types. Different textures, colours, sizes and shapes. The flavour range is incredible, bannana, pineapple, anise, nutmeg etc etc. Three or four differnent types in a pie gives a very complex mix of flavours and textures. But, these are dying out and most people prefer imported Braeburns. What I am unaware of is if this is due to peoples preferences or supermarkets preference? I'm sure that the apples are one example amoungst many. What is sad about this thread is that many of the excellent foods that have been mentioned are not eaten very much at all and this is in an era where food shows are on TV at least once a week and it is common to see London described as one of the great food destinations of the world.

ellencho - the most important thing is for you to decide what you want to do with the pasta. It is much easier then you may think and can be a very fun and social activity. If you have kids they will most likely enjoy helping to stuff pasta etc. In the north of Italy where many of the stuffed pasta originate, it is usual to use soft wheat flour. This type of flour comes in many grades, but "00" is mostly used. It is very refined (in a good way) and has low amounts of the things that will make many pasta doughs turn grey and give you a murky coloured pasta. It also has a relatively low protein content, so less gluten can be formed. This is why eggs are commonly added, to give the starch in the flour some protein to hang on to! The dried pasta in the shops and most of the pasta types from the south of Italy are made from durum wheat flour (semolina - fine grade, not the stuff for puddings), this contains a high protein content and so produces much gluten. So it doesn't require the egg, and in some cases this would be overkill. It also produces naturally yellow pasta, whereas the soft wheat flour produces white pasta, unless you use many highly coloured eggs. In practice, you can use either after all you are the one going to eat it. I find that the two flours produce pasta with different mouth feels and I prefer the soft wheat flour for stuffed pasta, tagliatelle, papadelle and lasagna. Durum wheat flour for finer types of pasta. These are my preferences and don't reflect anything other then that (for instance lasagna pasta is made in the north and south using different flours, so what is authentic etc). If using soft wheat flour, it really is worth finding some Italian '00' grade and getting the best eggs you can find. One thing that isn't commonly mentioned is that it is possible to fry stuffed pasta (soft wheat with egg) and these make good things to hand around at parties etc. Enjoy.

More good things: Bath Chaps - one cannot have enough pig cheek IMO. Black Bun -Scottish. Buttery Rowies (Butteries, Aberdeen Rowies). Excellent regional pastry. Selkirk Bannock. Marmalade Port Oatcakes Cumberland sausage Bacon - Aryeshire sweet cure at the moment. All of these items (OK, maybe not Port) depend on the skill of the maker and the quality of the ingredients used. Seems self evident, but given the terrible food I have found here using the names of these dishes, it obviously isn't.

No offense taken. I declared my interest merely to discredit my own opinions. Oh, well that is OK then.