Steve Plotnicki

"Let me try again. You need to show, Steve, not that France was accessible to travellers, but that other countries were comparatively inaccessible." Wilfrid- You keep making that the task, but the task is not responsive to my thesis. Watch my lips. France was accessable to travelers, and the French were in a position from an agricultural, socio-ecomonic and scholarly perspective to take advantage of it. That travellers had access to Germany etc. doesn't disprove anything I said because the Germans weren't in the same position, or maybe weren't inclined to to take advantage of the diversity that takes place when foreigners travel within your country. Just the mere fact that the French were open to that diversity and the Germans weren't makes for a large difference in how their cultures developed, not to say it didn't extend into their respective positions in the two great wars. Soba - I think we all agreed long ago that things do not have to be expensive to be complex. The best example of that on your list is ratatouille. Real ratatouille is literally a vegetable jam. It is vegetables, olive oil, garlic, herbs and spices that are slow cooked to the point that most of the moisture is virtually cooked out of it and it becomes a quasi paste of overcooked vegetables. And while it costs pennies to make, the skill level one has top have to get it just right is not at the Cooking 101 level. Think of all the variables. The ripeness of the vegetables. What their water content might be. What proportion of them go in. Do they all get cooked for the same length of time etc. Tweaking your ratatouille to perfection is sort of a lifelong affair. Just like tweaking your cassoulet might be. The description of ratatouille and how it's made in Patricia Wells's Food Lover's Guide to France is pretty good. She writes about a place in the port of Cassiss where they make it in the fashion I described. But tell me, what do you think people prefer to talk about, ratatouille or succotash?

" If the prevalence of French food in some countries can be explained merely by its superiority then the converse question needs to be answered. Why is it not prevalent in Italy, Spain and elsewhere?" That is an excellent question. Isn't the obvious answer that Spanish and Italian cuisines are complete cuisines based on itheir own cooking strategy and that stratgy was devised hundreds of years ago? And while those cuisines are dominant in their own native countries, isn't the reason that French is preferrable because the technique is more modern and refined? And let me ask it a different way. If there wasn't a Spanish Inquisition and Spain didn't eradicate cultural diversity, would their cuisine have not fallen into the dark ages between 1500 and 1970? And if the modernization of Italian cuisine was something that happened more recently than Catherine di Medici, do you think French cuisine would be as dominant as it is today?

Robert S. - Cabrales stated my position well. You keep asking me to support my statement with empirical evidence. Something I say from the beginning that I can't possibly do. But I can point to how many people with sufficient knowledge of cooking and dining would agree with me and say that the numbers are so proficient that the need for empirical evidence has been replaced by my offer of circumstantial evidence that is of such weight in favor of the conclusion, that it makes everyone's constant request for empirical evidence seem drone-like. As for paella, don't know where they have a good one. How about a nice risotto though? I'm free for lunch as my meetings today have been cancelled. Bux - Obviously people who traveled the entire distance by boat skipped France. But people who traveled by land didn't. How about people who made pilgrimages to Rome or to Santiago di Campostello. Or to Lourdes? Or to Chartres? Or how about when they built the train system and routes for distribution of products by land instead of sea because they wanted them there more quickly? The point about Boulud is limited to geography and how advancements in French cooking now take place all over the word, not just in France. If you don't think improvements in methods of transportations and how information gets distributed are what has impacted that the most, I don't know what to tell you. Do you think that it's just a coincidence that France's golden age coincides with a period of time when access to information and travel in general was more limited than it is today? Putting it another way, is it airplanes, television sets and fax machines that have put French cooking behind the eight ball? What a coincidence it is that once information was able to "skip over France," that's when they started to lose their cultural dominance.

The food tastes better and to think anything else is condescending. If one doesn't agree with this for reasons other than the ones Robert Schonfeld raises, one should go get their palate checked by a doctor. All the rest of the reasons you state have to do with why it is better, not if it is better. There are numerous reasons why and most of them have been raised in the other thread. But the only reason it's better is because it tastes better.

"Your own descriptions point out that people were often travelling through France on their way to somewhere else, which alone makes the theory that France's location was privileged absurd." Wilfrid - It's good you're a philosopher and not in the travel business. Has it occurred to you that if you were British and you wanted to make your way to Italy, the Iberian peninsula and even points in southern Europe east of Italy YOU HAD TO GO THROUGH FRANCE TWICE to get there and back. That is the entire point. Might someone who was on his way from Italy to Britain have had some ravioli in his pouch and when he stopped at an Inn in Provence, threw a batch into the pot of boiling water and that inspired somebody to copy it with a daube filling? How else could it have happened? Then Gavin points out that superior food products in Italy and Spain stayed local. As opposed to Saucison Seche and Beaujolais which are from different regions. Does anyone realize that THEY ARE TRANSPORTED from one region to another? Something the others didn't do. Let me save you lots of time in your new thread. The reason French food became fashionable is because IT IS BETTER. Or another way of saying it for those of you who want to believe that things are subjective, not objective, more people who are knowledgable about food think it's better than any other cuisine. The reason they think so is based on their eating it. It begins and ends there. In general I am finding the reluctance to give geographical location its due sort of funny. And I don't mean ha ha funny. When I was in Israel, we were at some tourist attraction I can't remember which one, and I asked the person giving the tour why Jerusalem, in fact Israel in general has always been such a hotly contested place for religious groups. They walked me over to a topagraphical map of the region. One of those three dimensional jobs that lies flat that you could walk around. They proceeded to show me how Israel lies at the crossroads of civilization. If you wanted to go to Africa from Europe by land, or from points in Asia, bingo. And when I look at a map of Europe, and try to figure out why Paris was the heart of European culture, culinary and otherwise between 1870-1970 if not longer, all you have to do is look at a map to see that Paris is the geographical hub of all the other cities that were cultural centers in Europe. It's those glorious rivers they have in France that do it. The Loire, the Marne, Seine etc. Those are the routes that people traveled, alongside those rivers. In fact the roads that they built, the route nationals usually ran alongside them. As did the railways they built, and then the highways. Bux - Your point about xenophobia actually supports my theory. Because what is most typically French is for them to take something, deconstruct it and reconstruct it as a French creation. I need to go no further than the infamous DB Burger to make that point. Boulud could have served a plain, but well made burger with perfect ingredients. But he "Frenchified it" which is the entire point I'm making. Except in this instance, he was the one who changed locale. As opposed to his being stationary and the concept of the hamburger coming to him. The fact that Boulud made that burger in NYC, as opposed to somewhere in Paris makes my point as well because it shows that once people had access to better modes of transportation, and they weren't tied to being in France, concepts became portable and someone like Boulud could create something "French" while being in NYC. Something unheard of before airplane travel became the dominant mode of transportation.

JD - Yours was a good post. It added the analytical element to what's been said already which was access to outside ingredients and ideas, and an agricultural climate to take advantage of those ideas. Your addition just adds how the French penchance for mathematics was part of the mix. It's like another wine buddy of mine says (who happens to be a statistician,) the French developed the A.O.C. system in large part because they are mathematicians, and their reflex reaction is to codify things in precise quantities. But in other ways I think your post stopped short of coming to the obvious conclusions. You say you don't buy the geography theory but then you say that "that French furniture, clothing, and ultimately cookery became standards of "civilisation". This social phenomenon may explain some of the diffusion of French cuisine." And that makes me wonder how all this French culture traveled to those places and why if information and culture radiated out of French hub, those who came from far away distances like Russia to carry French culture back with them could or would do so without bringing their own culture into France for those mathematicians to deconstruct, and then reconstruct them into French culture? Hubs are hubs for no other reason than geography. And the traffic has to flow in both directions for any hub to exist. Also, your point about Lievre a Royale and Pappardelle al Lepre is telling. Because it is obvious on its face that the big difference between the two dishes is how much it costs to make them. And when I say that, I am adding in the time and effort it takes to make a more involved preparation to the cost. The simple answer to why French cuisine is dominant is that their tradition of restaurant cooking for classes other than the super elite has been going on longer than anywhere else. Is this a result of the fact that outsiders wanted and had to travel there? How could it not be a factor? That they had a superior geographical location, or that they had fertile farmland, or that they are a bunch of mathematicians who codified everything etc., are just factors they took advantage of to make the end result even more complex and refined. But none of that really gets at the reason their food is dominant. The simple answer to that question is that the tradition of eating in restaurants in France has been going on longer, and included a greater percentage of the population than in other European countries did for quite a long time. This access to culinary knowledge among the masses made restaurants and the chefs that owned them compete for the almighty franc. So if you were going to spend your hard earned money on a plate of sauteed lambchops and a potato gratin, who made the best version was important. Just like it is today. And it was within that process that *professionals refined the cuisine* in a way that wasn't necessary to do in other countries because the traditions of eating outside of the home were different. It's the same answer that the owner of Al Hamra in Shepherd's Market once gave me about why Middle Eastern food in London is so much better than the Middle Eastern food in NYC. "We have more Arabs here so there's more competition." Sometimes the answers to things are too simple. But getting back to the original question of why we find French food more interesting, I can't seem to walk away from the theory that this freedom from class restraints that we started practicing in French bistros at the turn of the century and up until today, is still the best culinary expression of social freedom. From the perspective of being a diner as well as a cook/chef. And I think we still like to take part in it for that reason. And I don't see the difference between having a Canard d'Olives at a place like Allard that a chef refined to a restaurant level and eating at Nobu. It's still about food for us as opposed to food for them if you know what I mean. Toby - It sounds like I have to pick up that book. Make that 5001 on the pile.

Anil - I'm trying to find out the thrust of your question. Is this a hypothetical and you are just trying to figure out which arrondisement has the best food? Or does actual living conditions matter because you are going to move there? Personally, I'm fond of the residential portion of the 7th arr. Between Invalides and Avenue Bourdenaiss. It is quiet, not overrun by tourists, has a good market on rue Cler, a couple of great purveyors in the area like Anne-Marie Cantin and Poujerain which isn't far away, and I think it has a nice grouping of neighborhood-type restaurants that are fairly inexpensive. It has bad metro access though. One has to walk to Invalides or Ecole Militaire to catch the train. But it is an easy walk (20 minutes?) to other points of interest like St. Germain, Montparnasse, the Grand Palais or the Pont Alma to get to the Champs Elysees. But if you want the neighborhood with the most restaurants per capita, then move to a residential portion of the 8th. The area behind the Champs-Elysee area off of between Saint-Honore and the Parc Monceau is lovely and within walking distance of loads of good restaurants. And the very good rue Poncelet market is nearby along with the excellent cheese shop Alleosse. Of course there are probably a good dozen other areas to suggest that might fit the bill. But those are my two favorites.

"Most of the questions Steve asks are those which a businessman would ask if he were about to launch a new product, while others are asking questions which are primarily aesthetic or historical or even philosophical. (This isn't meant as a put-down.)" John - I saw this after my last post. Actually this particluar issue is a pet peeve of mine. I think that the greatest mistake people make is to think that consumers buy things that they don't really want or don't really like. Or in this instance, that French cuisine is dominant because they did a good job of exporting it, i.e., marketing and promoting it where the implication is they don't deserve it on the merits. I learned this lesson well when I first opened my business. We had licensed a 12" single from a British company where the artist was a British TV personality at the time. We manufactured the record and within a matter of weeks we were able to get it on the two biggest radio stations in NYC. We had it on the radio for about six weeks and we sold a grand total of 4500 copies. A dismal total compared to the amount hit records typically sold. And it wasn't for lack of play or for lack of inventory in the stores. We couldn't figure out why we weren't getting better results but in interviewing various shop owners about it we learned the secret. People just didn't like it that much. It was a hard lesson to learn, but one I'm glad we learned at the beginning. Never again did I think that business was about leading horses to water. Successful business were about finding water horses would drink. Anyone can lead horses, but it's to nowhere if they won't drink the water.

"although you've modified some of your original positions, timewise, actually the transmission of food along trade and travel routes is a fascinating, although difficult, subject." Toby - You know I haven't done that at all. Here is my original quote about the topic. "When I retire to France and I write my famous book on how French cuisine came to be dominant, I am certain I will find that during the era it came to dominance, information traveled by foot. And west of Germany, to get from anywhere in Northern Europe to Southern Europe one needed to travel though France so they were exposed to more different cultures than any other country. It sounds simplistic but there has to be something to it." I haven't taken any position other than if I did the research on it, this is what *I think* I will find. And if you notice I use the phrase "came to be dominant" which is really over the last 150 years. But in the usual, over-argumentative style of eGullet (which I've been known to take part in,) specifically driven by Wilfrid in this instance, I've had to defend my premise as if I've actually done the research and then made the statement. And despite qualifying my statement with the phrase "came to dominance," not a single person asked me what that meant. But then in a different context when I raised it, Wilfrid and now you have accused me of modifying my position. It's as if the pendent pedantry around here wouldn't cut anyone some slack and say that the thrust of the statement is to say that France contained some major transportation routes that people used to get from Northern to Southern points, and that had a positive impact on how their cuisine developed. People are obsessed in making me prove "one needed to travel through France" when disproving that point doesn't really disprove the theory. It's as if they couldn't themselves substitute the phrase "chose to" or "often had to" themselves. Even your list of books on their face imply that trade routes and geography usually have had a major impact on how culinary culture developed. Why on earth would I have to defend what is such an obvious concept? Would it be a shock to anyone if the Italians brought pizza with them, because it traveled well when cold, through the South of France because that was the only non-mountainous route to Spain or to England and that's why its so prevelent there? I'm sure we could find dozens of those types of examples. Again, if people were happy that France is gastronomically dominant, this type of argument wouldn't ensue. Instead of picking apart the words based on their lack of precision in order to whittle at the basic premise, they would help refine the concepts. Sometimes the amount of protest including what is being protested is more telling than any substantive point people try to make. But thanks for the recommendations of the books. I just happened to pick up "Near a Thousand Tables, A History of Food" by Felipe Fernandez-Arnesto and I'm sure I'll get to read it someday because I'm about 5,000 books behind in my reading. John W. - Let me ask you a question as an aside, do you think that conceptual art needs an explication by the artist because we haven't the experience to decipher three dimensional art ourselves? Also, to say "The various bean and meat stews which make up the separate components are simplicity itself" avoids the issue under discussion here which is how the French managed to balance those simple things when put together. Balance is the key issue in making something complex. Loads of things that have the ingredients for complexity aren't because the technique applied to them failed to achieve the right balance. It's the trait that makes for great bottles of wine. The French, to their credit, were masters at creating that balance. Other cultures were less successful at it.

Only because of the condiments. The dogs sound boring. I'm very much against that split and griddle technique. Jews would never do that. Years ago when the Sterns first wrote about Zabs dogs in Rochester, and the way the grillman would skewer the things and rip it to shreds over the charcoal, I was sort of intrigued. My sister-in-law was living in Rochester at the time and she brought me dogs. They were okay. Just dogs in the end. But the piece is good. It makes something that's probably ordinary sound interesting. Personally, I always liked Pink's Chilli Dogs. Boy are they junky. But it reminds me of that guy who opened the cheese steak place on West 3rd Street. What's it called, Ba Ba Ba Ba Ba something? Worst thing I ever ate. Mr.s P and I ordered one on a Saturday about a month ago and most of it ended up in the garbage.

"chiboust with a caramelized banana sauce is heaven" Lesley - Well when you come to NYC for the Gramenon, bring some grapefruit chiboust with you. What type of dessert wine does chiboust go with?

This is another ay, ay, ay thread where I can't figure out what you are all arguing about. "Ducasse seemed the natural to succeed Robuchon as the consensus "best chef" of France, if only because he took over Robuchon's restaurant." Bux - You're right. But in hindsight it's logical that he didn't. Robuchon was the zenith of traditional French cooking. I always say it as a joke but, the decision to make the mashed potatoes half potatoes and half butter and cream, that's the culinary equivelent of climbing Mount Everest. Not as a matter of difficulty, but as a matter of taking the risk to do it and serve it. What was Ducasse going to do, make it 2/3 butter and cream? Robuchon elevated old fashion cooking to the nth degree and Ducasse didn't have an answer for it. In fact, nobody did and that is why French cuisine is sort of in this funny place now. I haven't eaten at L'Astrance, but I am finding "compelling" a bit hard to swallow when describing it. I've read people's reports about it with much interest. But I fail to see what about it is compelling. Clever yes. Inventive in pairing flavors yes. But compelling? That's a big ticket for me. Now Robert Brown's writeup of El Bulli, now that seems compelling. L'Astrance seems to be ingenius rather than compelling, especially at its price point, . But I say that as an outsider.

"Why can't the UWS support the diversity and quality of restaurants found in other upper-income neighborhoods such as Soho. the Upper East Side and Tribeca?" That's easy, people just don't want to spend that type of money to go out in their neighborhood. The UES has the same problem. Except we have a couple of big attrractions like the Met and the Whitney and when you pair them up with The Carlisle and The Mark Hotel, you can get Cafe Boulud and Cello. But otherwise? Most of the areas in the city that have numerous restaurants that do well are destination neighborhoods. But one comment my wife made about Oeust when we were there is that she thought the people didn't look like New Yorkers. And I am wondering since its on the wat to the GWB that is gets a disproportionate number of Jerseyites who stop there on there way home.

Wilfrid - Ah I like it when you're on the defensive "If we are concentrating on the last 150 years, which is very reasonable, geographical location is obviously not so important. Also, I don't think there's much to choose between systems of government - in most European countries at least - for much of that period." I think there are two things about that. Whatever theory I can prove about European travel through France, lasts until the autoroutes were built. Until they were built, France had inns at most important postal stops. All of those Hostellerie de la Postes everywhere. Second, there is a 70 year gap between the implementation of French democracy and Italian democracy. For Spain, a 100 year gap. In order for French cuisine to be worthy of being exported, it had to be noticed by outsiders when they traveled in France. The English new about how good French cooking was because THEY TRAVELED THROUGH FRANCE on their way to other places like Rome or Vienna or to ski in Switzerland. They brought back French food to England with them for the same reason they brought back curry from India. It was a sufficiently different, and probably a better spicing regimen than what they were used to. Who's the person on this site who told the story of the song Yankee Doodle, and how the expression "put a feather in his cap and call it macaroni was the way they used to describe "dandys" who traveled to Italy and picked up the local custom and brought it back to England? Was that story on this site or another one? Well regardless, that's exactly how food custom moved around. The way the Brits brought macaroni back to London from Italy. And which country did they travel through to do that?

Wilfrid - Your response is useless. We aren't discussing cooking techniques that are 500 or 1000 years old. We are asking why France became dominent over the last 150 years. What people did, where people went, how they did it before then is not going to have as much impact as what they did over the last 150. And saying that modernism was an international movement doesn't speak to the fact that it flourished in some countries and didn't in others. Did it flourish in Britain? To me it looks like it skipped directly from MacKintosh to Richard Rodgers and Mrs. Beeton to Alistair Little. What you are really getting at, which you have done before, is you are trying to make an argument that French cooking isn't dominant. And that is why you are picking apart every word I write. Well you can't change the facts by quibbling with my theories. While I might not have hit it on the head as to the reason why French is dominant, you still can't disprove the fact that it is overwhelmingly dominant by refuting my theories. And if you don't like the reasons I give for its dominance, choose your own reasons. I'm only trying to explain why it's the case, not if it's the case.

Wilfrid - Well you continue to ignore the second part of my thesis which is, "WERE IN A POSITION TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF" Please let's not forget that again. It was relevent to the French if the Romans came through with a particlularly good variety of wheat because they had the wherewithall to farm it and other places might not have. Same with wine. If the Romans or anybody else for that matter cultivated a varietal, it could be planted to good results in France. That isn't the case in Britain and Africa. It's like my stock market example. Information alone doesn't get you anywhere. You need to know how to use the information, and you need to have money to take advantage of it. Somehow, the French took advantage of their resources, both inherited as well as ones brought in from external sources better than the other countries in Europe did. That is one of the main reasons why their food and cooking is *superior* to the other European countries. But if you want to be old school about it, you can say that the French just happened to be good cooks, just like the Dutch just happened to be good sailors. And that is why the Dutch, a tiny country, had one of the greatest shipping businesses in the history of the world. The fact that it's on the sea had nothing to do with it. "I'll take a perfectly executed risotto over a great paella any day, truly. Add a mache and radish salad with a simple vinaigrette and that's it for me. Perhaps my favorite meal." Nina - That's lunch. I'm talking about dinner. And to all of you who made those lists of Italians and Spaniards, I didn't say there weren't any did I? I'm not asking about people, I'm asking about the modernist spriit in those countries. Was there any? How many of the people on those lists went to France to practice their art? When Chagall left Russia, where did he go, Madrid? Van Gogh he's Dutch right, where did he go Istanbul? Where are all his famous paintings painted? Whatever anybody has to say about France, it's at the crossroads of Western Europe. In the days when people and information moved predominantly by foot, that has to have had some impact on it's cultural evolution. And by the same token, places like Spain and Italy had to suffer based on their geographic location. How about a harder question. How does geography in Europe relate to when certain countries turned democratic and why others stayed monarchys or other types of authoritarian governments longer? Isn't one of the reasons we are so fascinated with French cuisine is that France was the country that offered the most personal freedom and it encouraged creativity of all types including cooking? And isn't that why artists flocked there? And when someone cooks French food today, isn't that just a statement that we still enjoy that expression and what it stands for?

Robert S. - The point is that France's unusual access to culinary information, because it was a central point for travel must be one of the factors in their culinary dominance. It's like the stock market. He who has access to the best information wins. Someone who is lurking on this board just emailed me an article on the History of French Cuisine. And while I just glanced at it, the very first paragraph talks about how the Romans brought their own wheat, wine and spices with them when they marched through Gaul. That's the point get it? Other travelers from southern Europe who were emmigrated to France, or passed through it on their way to Northern or Eastern Europe passed through France. Already on this board there was a discussion about whether cholent was the inspiration for cassoulet, and whether the Spanish Inquisition, which sent Jews scurrying through all parts of France into every country in Northern Europe influenced other French foods like quenelles. Robert S. - Let me ask you about another aspect of this that merits discussion. The French were modernists. Their art, their cooking, their architecure etc. The Germans too but that ended for obvious reasons. But the Italians weren't very modern. Nor were the Spanish. Why is that and how much do you think that effects what we are discussing? And I dare you to make a risotto that is anywhere as good as the best paella. It can't happen.

"But do you think more people are clamoring for cassoulet - which indeed they are - only because it is more complex in construction and flavor? Surely also it has something to do with the fact that it is much better known than "Tuscan beans". Wilfrid - Anyone who has made his living selling things will tell you that the reason French culture is/was dominant, was that it was better. Okay that's a gross generalization but as far as generalizations go, it's a pretty good one. It's condescending to think that French cuisine is prolific because they were good promoters. Good promoters are only as good as the product they have to offer. As for my theory on European travel, I had no era in mind. But what I said is that I suspect that the formulation of their food culture was helped in large part by having greater exposure, based on geographical location, to other cultures. Just the fact that their own cooking culture revolves around three different types of fuel, olive oil, goose fat and butter, begins to make this point all by itself. But I mean look which way the Romans travelled. Why didn't they travel up over the alps into Switzerland and Germany? There has been a major overland route from Rome, thorugh France and stretching well into the west of England for 2000 years.

Oliva - It Domaine Tempier (100% mourvedre), Chateau Pibarnon (can't find the info), Chateaux Pradeaux (100% mourvedre) and Bastide Blanche (2/3 mourvedre and 1/3 grenache) are the best producers. The wines are very slow to mature and they are tannic as hell.

"The Italians do make a dish with white beans, duck, sausages, pancetta, sofritto, red wine, broth and parmesan that is close to cassoulet" I think everybody keeps overcomplicating this issue. It isn't that there might not be an Italian version of cassoulet, it's that nobody cares about it. Go pick up Fred Plotkin's book on the Friuli-Venezia. There are loads of recipes that are unusual in there. But I don't see people clammoring for the information about how to make them. People aren't trying to perfect their frico. But they are trying to perfect their gratin. Everyone keeps trying to argue this point by turning the question around and asking, is a cassoulet really better than Tuscan beans? And the inference when they ask that is that they really don't think so?.That isn't the issue. It should just be accepted that more people are interested in making a cassoulet than Tuscan beans based on a head count. And if people are unhappy with the obvious reason for that, i.e., cassoulet has more ingredients in it than Tuscan beans so the flavor of one is more complex, then that's a personal preference. But what that has to do with the objective measure of complexity as so well outlined by Wilfrid I don't know. Tea is a more complex drink than water. And a milkshake is a more complicated beverage than a glass of chocolate milk. And that eventually gets us to truffles being more complex than button mushrooms. Just extrapolate it from there.

Gee Wilfrid baby, I looked at that map and France loks pretty centrally located to me. Like anyone who wants to go to Spain or Portugal has to pass through. And the Brits. Did they cross at Boulogne and then go east and cross the alps that way? Or did they go down through Burgundy and the Loire and along the coast so as not to have to pass over the alps? In fact, France is the only route from south to north where you don't have to cross the alps correct? Do you think that would increase foot traffic?

Bux said, "I also find that complexity often rests in the mind of the beholder. " Then Wilfrid said, "By definition, there is more to be said about complex things than simple things: whether what is said is interesting has to be determined case by case." I find those two statements to be in conflict. Beauty as a matter of personal preference might be in the eye of the beholder, but that isn't an acceptable standard for Eileen Ford. Her concept of what beauty is might be broad, but is not without specifics, and doesn't rely on subjectivity. Eileen Ford is successful because her concept of beauty happens to reconcile with what most people think beautiful is. Yes it isn't a bright line, but it is nowhere near as subjective as people like to make it.

Wilfrid my dear, anyone in the British Isles, Belgium and the Netherlands, who wanted to go to either Spain or Italy would have to do so by traveling through France. And vice versa. And that doesn't take into consideration people who just want to go as far as some point in France. In addition, people in the north of Europe or anyone who was east of the Alps and who wanted to go to Spain would have to pass through France. Not to mention the people who wanted to go to the United Kingdom and traveled through France to board the ferries in Le Havre or Boulogne.

"-Italian food is based, as you have understood, on simplicity and emphasis on the quality of ingredients, rather than on complexity. This is intent, not accident or failure." Robert S. - I don't buy it. That argument rests on Italy having superior terroir than France and while Italy has some great terroir, I wouldn't call it superior. Italian cuisine hasn't really advanced in a few hundred years. Maybe it has to do with the unification of Italy coming at such a late date? And how cuisine in Italy is basically provincial. As oppossed to Paris, where you can find every type of French restaurant, Rome and Milan are in large part made up of Roman and Milanese restaurants. And I will take exception to a risotto being a "great dish." Yes I've enjoyed some delicious risottos in my day but in general it's too simplistic for me. Only a seafood risotto ever really moves me. But that's because it almost isn't risotto anymore. It's more like paella with tomatoes. Bux - I am trying to stay away from the argument about whether the perfect rose all by itself is more beautiful than a bouquet of flowers. Unfortunately the answer to that question is, depends on how perfect the rose is or how good a bouquet was made or what the backdrop for the rose is blah, blah, blah. But in general, if people around here were interested in flowers, they would most likely be interested in making bouquets. Not putting single roses into bud vases. And the beans are the same. The number of ingredients in cassoulet is what makes that dish have such an allure for most of us. When it's on, it is harmonious. Tuscan beans can be great, but never quite that harmonious because it's just a side dish.

Wilfrid - Pedantry will get you nowhere. Just because people COULD travel to Spain from Belgium by boat, doesn't mean everybody did. Maybe the richest people would go by boat but I think most people went on foot (horse and carriage.) How about the people walking from Northern Europe to Santiago di Campostello? They must have carried much food lore with them don't you think? Or people going to Florence and Rome? Or the French Riviera at the turn of the century? The other issue here is that you needed to be more than a crossroads of civilzations, you needed to be in a position to take advantage of it. France with it's great agricultural resources could better take advantage of the influence of other cultures than a place like Switzerland can. All of this begs the question that if Spain or Italy was in in the geopgraphic location that France is in, whether they would have emerged as the dominant cuisine of the 20 th century?