French food pairings: Tradition, region, logic?

[John Talbott]

French food pairings: Tradition, region, logic?

The recently revived thread on steak/frites caused me to ponder a bit about food pairings in France. Certainly much too much has been written on wine/food pairings (for example, Champagne/caviar, Sauternes/foie gras, rum/baba, Muscat/mousse, Port/Roquefort, white-red/fish, etc.) but I was intrigued that with certain things you just know what you’re going to get with your main: eg steak/frites, tartare/frites, confit de canard/sarladaise, meat stew/parmentier, etc.

I can guess that if one cooks duck, one would want to utilize the fat so rendered to fry the sliced potatoes in and use a local cabbage to cook with nearby Alsatian/Alsacienne meat – both because – like Everest – they are there, but with the confit de canard, why always serve it with slices of potato rather than frites or minced potatoes?; and why use beans with goose confit and sausage rather than another vegetable?; or parmentier underneath chopped/stewed meat or for that matter fries with tartare of beef?

So a question for/to the French-French and Franco-Americans who write cookbooks and know history and terroir and indeed all of us; what is the answer to my puzzlement or is it “all or none of the above?”

[Ptipois]

but with the confit de canard, why always serve it with slices of potato rather than frites or minced potatoes?

←

Because potatoes were cooked in the most readily available fat, i.e. rendered fat from the duck or goose, and it was pan-frying, not deep-frying. Also because a final sprinkling of raw garlic had to be added to the potatoes, and the greasy, sticky pommes sarladaises would hold the garlic and absorb its flavor better than frites would. Also, frites are a rather recent invention, whether they were invented in Paris or in Belgium or — as some say — in Brittany, they are not part of traditional Southwestern culture.

Frites are now everywhere but they have to be understood as a very urban preparation. They are, historically, city food. So very foreign to cassoulet, which is a country dish.

As for the cassoulet, what you should ask is not "why the beans with the meats?" but rather "why the meats with the beans?", because — a very important, much overlooked fact —, historically and for economic reasons, cassoulet is not a dish of various meats on a bed of beans but rather a dish of beans with something on top, i.e. whatever was to be grabbed around, so depending on the location any preserved meat that was made. Hence the differences between cassoulets. The antique, primitive versions of cassoulet (broad beans with salt pork) are here to testify. Beans are not a side dish in cassoulet. They are the very nature of the dish, and confit and sausages and etc. are just added things. Even in the late 19th century a cassoulet for poor people was composed only of beans and some pork rinds for added mellowness.

[Ptipois]

Parmentier, I think, makes sense by itself. The mashed potatoes (which are on top of the meat, btw, not the other way round) are supposed to cover a regular layer of chopped leftover stew meat. The dish itself was created to make good use of leftovers, and the texture of mashed potatoes seemed to suit the texture of the chopped meat, cover it more hermetically and produce a better, firmer, more even texture (a good parmentier can be cut like a cake). It also helps the meat to stew a bit longer in the oven.

[pierre45]

but with the confit de canard, why always serve it with slices of potato rather than frites or minced potatoes?

←

Because potatoes were cooked in the most readily available fat, i.e. rendered fat from the duck or goose, and it was pan-frying, not deep-frying. Also because a final sprinkling of raw garlic had to be added to the potatoes, and the greasy, sticky pommes sarladaises would hold the garlic and absorb its flavor better than frites would. Also, frites are a rather recent invention, whether they were invented in Paris or in Belgium or — as some say — in Brittany, they are not part of traditional Southwestern culture.

Frites are now everywhere but they have to be understood as a very urban preparation. They are, historically, city food. So very foreign to cassoulet, which is a country dish.

As for the cassoulet, what you should ask is not "why the beans with the meats?" but rather "why the meats with the beans?", because — a very important, much overlooked fact —, historically and for economic reasons, cassoulet is not a dish of various meats on a bed of beans but rather a dish of beans with something on top, i.e. whatever was to be grabbed around, so depending on the location any preserved meat that was made. Hence the differences between cassoulets. The antique, primitive versions of cassoulet (broad beans with salt pork) are here to testify. Beans are not a side dish in cassoulet. They are the very nature of the dish, and confit and sausages and etc. are just added things. Even in the late 19th century a cassoulet for poor people was composed only of beans and some pork rinds for added mellowness.

←

Excellent explaination with a historic perspective,not only about frites and cassoulet but also about Parmentier discussed on the next thread.

[Ptipois]

Excellent explaination with a historic perspective,not only about frites and cassoulet but also about Parmentier discussed on the next thread.

←

Well, re-reading John's metaphysical interrogations about parmentier, I realized why he had a problem with that dish. Apparently, he believed that the parmentier was the layer of potatoes on top of the meat. It is not. The parmentier (shorter for "hachis Parmentier") is the whole dish: chopped leftover beef stew + mashed potatoes on top. Therefore you need not wonder about the pairing because it is not a pairing, it is a dish in its own right.

Mind you, this is not to be confused with other dishes qualified as "parmentier" without being "hachis": omelette Parmentier, potage parmentier: it only means there are potatoes in it.

[John Talbott]

Actually, since all Americans have dyslexia and/or go into rehab; my original post was a clear confusion between au-dessus and au-dessous (Trans: above/below). As penance (to stay OnT,) I'm checking into Michel Guerard's ASAP.

However, back to my point. Is pairing dictated/followed because of tradition/history (frites/tartare), regional proximity (choucroute/sausage) or logic (preserved duck with potatoes sauteed in the fat provided - under the principle of waste-not/want-not)? So far it seems the answer is - all of the above.

How about herring and luke-warm potatoes? or sliced (what we call) coldcuts with pickles (cornichons?)

And while maybe Nordic, how about salmon and dill - that pairing sounds more like positioning ingredients than tradition/history, regionality or logic?

[pierre45]

Actually, since all Americans have dyslexia and/or go into rehab; my original post  was a clear confusion between au-dessus and au-dessous (Trans: above/below).  As penance (to stay OnT,) I'm checking into Michel Guerard's ASAP.

However, back to my point.  Is pairing dictated/followed because of tradition/history (frites/tartare), regional proximity (choucroute/sausage) or logic (preserved duck with potatoes sauteed in the fat provided - under the principle of waste-not/want-not)?  So far it seems the answer is - all of the above.

How about herring and luke-warm potatoes?  or sliced (what we call) coldcuts with pickles (cornichons?)

And while maybe Nordic, how about salmon and dill - that pairing sounds more like positioning ingredients than tradition/history, regionality or logic?

←

All these food pairings is the result of some innovative cooking or happenstenance in the past that caught on and became tradional cuisine.

[Ptipois]

Not that I know of any reply for those questions, but I can only suggest through simple culinary common sense:

Salmon and dill: a Nordic pairing, two Nordic ingredients. Dill is supposed to come from the Norse dilla, which means "to lull". It is a soothing, digestive plant. I can only imagine that dill was supposed to cut down the fattiness of the salmon, as is usually the case with "warm" digestive spices associated with fatty meat or fish.

Lukewarm potatoes with marinated smoked herring: the dish would appear too oily if the potatoes were cold. A bit of warmth makes it easier to digest. Besides, French-style potato salad is always supposed to taste better if a little warm and, in any case, has to be seasoned while still warm (as the chef in Renoir's Rules of the Game clearly reminds us). So the sooner it is served, the better.

I think cold cuts with pickles speak for themselves; cold food is less easy to digest than warm food. Pickles used to be widely relied on to help digestion (looking back on 17-century cooking it is amazing how much sourer than today's cooking it was). The rather bland taste of cold meat has to be perked up by the acidity of the pickles; as is often the case (IMO), the taste factor echoes the health factor. This is not specifically French.