British cooking/Britain's food history and reputation

[Lord Michael Lewis]

Let's not forget England's historical control of:

Claret (Bordeaux)

Madeira

Sherry

& Port.

Drinks quite as British as beer.

[Steve Plotnicki]

LML-Those are all Upper Class drinks. The lower classes didn't drink claret nor port. None of those.

Steve -I understood what you meant before you said the magic words "Mittel Europa." But why do you think it hasn't kept pace? Is post WWII communism the culprit? Did the creation of a classless society kill the goose? Obviously the people whom that cuisine appealed to were Mittel Europeans of a better class.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

Upper? Are you sure you don't mean not habitually drunk by the labouring classes?

It was the British that developed and popularized these products, and for this reason they fall well within the canon of British contribution to the common gastronomic weal.

What about Rum?

And Gin?

And Tea?

And Coffee?

[Steve Plotnicki]

LML-Claret? Since when did the British develop claret. Try these on

The History of Bordeaux

Or port?

The History of Port

But you are indeed right about Madeira

History of Madeira

But it appears not about Rum

History of Rum

And you're close about Gin

History of Gin

But not even close on tea

History of Tea

And continents and centuries away on Coffee

History of Coffee

Maybe you should have said Mead. But I checked that too and the origins were shared between Celts and Saxons.

But I think you have helped me prove that the Brits were excellent at colonizing a place in order to bring back food and drink of value. I guess buying rum in the Caribbean laid the foundation for buying spam from the U.S.

[Tonyfinch]

Port and Lemon (as in Lemonade) was THE drink for women in pubs throughout the end of the 19th and first half of the 20thC. So ubiquitous was it that many didn't regard it as an alcoholic drink at all ("I don't drink but I don't mind a wee port & lemon to relax me " )being a common joke at this time.

Sherry,or sherris,was the "sack" drunk by the masses and by Falstaff in the Shakespeare plays and preceded the common drinking of spirits by a long time.The wines were originally fortified,like port,in order to better survive the journey from Iberia to Britain,where the market was massive.

Claret and "Rhenish" (German) wines were drunk just as much as ale and were available in most taverns and inns throughout London and increasingly in the rest of the country from the 1700s on.

[yvonne johnson]

Yes, port is a drink that’s enjoyed by all classes in Britain. If an expert opinion is called for, Jancis Robinson (ed.) in Oxford Companion to Wine concurs. She writes that port is “drunk everywhere from the gentlemen’s clubs to street corner pubs” (p. 747).

As for the British contribution to the development of port, I cite once more from Robinson (p. 744):

“The discovery of the wine-making technique which results in port is credited to an Englishman, a Liverpool wine merchant who, in 1678, sent his sons to Portugal in search of wine. At Lamego, a town in the mountains…they found a monastery where the abbot was adding brandy to the wine during, rather than after fermentation…so producing the sort of sweet alcoholic red wine that port would become.”

It looks like the Portuguese and English worked together on the port as, in 1703,  the two nations signed the Methuen Treaty giving tariff advantages for Portuguese wines.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Yvonne-It figures that the Brits would invent an "after dinner" drink. We couldn't expect them to have come up with something that tasted good with food could we? No incentive for a proper match  

[Lord Michael Lewis]

I said "developed and popularized" you numbskull.

That means we can take the credit for it in the same way that the French do about wine.

[Jinmyo]

But why do you think it hasn't kept pace? Is post WWII communism the culprit? Did the creation of a classless society kill the goose? Obviously the people whom that cuisine appealed to were Mittel Europeans of a better class.

As I mentioned on another board some time ago:

"A Romanian friend who left in the early 1980s told me that back then when you went to the shop to buy a pound of meat, you got a pound of meat. It might be chicken, pork, beef, horse and from any part of the animal. When you bought a knife you got a knife. For boning, carving, slicing bread, whatever. She was amazed that there were so many different kinds of knives in Israel."

I think that the basic infrastructure of those countries was so poorly handled that there was little opportunity to maintain let alone advance.

[Fat Guy]

Still, Austria and about half of Germany were never behind the Iron Curtain. So what's their excuse?

[Steve Plotnicki]

LML-Gee we're getting desperate here. When we start getting down to things like Scotch being a contribution to the world's food supply we've hit the bottom. Can I claim Schnapps for the Jews?

[Tonyfinch]

Yvonne,Jancis may be right about how port was "discovered" but the fact is it was necessary to do something because the public were in revolt about the appalling state the non-fortified Portuguese wines were in by the time they reached Britain.

Port is not just an after dinner drink.The French use it almost exclusively as an aperitif-and drink gallons of it.White and tawny port,with tonic,lemonade or soda makes a wonderful thirst quenching long drink with lazy lunches in hot climes.Chilled tawnies match very well with foie gras and other pate preparations and port can be drunk with virtually any food that calls for sweet wine.

Top vintage port is one of the great drinks of the world. In my opinion the classic English pairing with Stilton doesn't work all that well.The cheese is often far too strong and salty for the wine.I find Stilton,like lots of strong English cheeses, actually goes better with good ale.Vintage port should be contemplated either without food,or with a few walnuts or,especially pecans,to set it off-it is one of the great gastronomic experiences.

[Adam Balic]

Adam-Well aside from the subjective discussion if it is crappy or not, and you seem to say that since the onset of the 18C it has declined, which also happens to be the period we are discussing. But you are saying it is mainly a matter of culture and not economics. But the inference of your statement was that a tradition of dining is stronger among certain cultures than others. So if you don't mind me asking, are you Catholic or Protestant? And was/is food culture a function of religious upbringing.

Steve - I am just quoting you so I can remember what you said three pages ago!

To answer your question my father's family are Catholic (Croatian), my mothers family are Anglo-Saxon Anglican Protestants (low church). I was raised as the latter and yes of some aspects of of food are a function of religious upbringing (you don't really need me to tell you that right? ). My mother is a terrible cook, I was strange child that insisted that she buy one interesting thing for me to eat on her weekly shopping trips. I don't think that I am a good example , but I get your point.

I don't think that I was talking about "dining", more about food culture in general. Obviously, food culture is going to be dependent on lots of different factors including economics, religion etc. For example, Henry VIII got rid of fish-days (a filthy Catholic thing), but they were re-introduced about one hundred years later because of the decline in coastal towns and to raise money for the State.

I'm not sure British food declined from the 18th C, I would say it died (or nearly so) during the 19th and 20th . If you just want to consisder the top end, England was the most powerful nation in the world from the late 18th to 19th C. During the 17th-18th C. all the British cookbooks I have read have rejected French cooking techniques (ie give English beef and mutton plain and simple, rather then French Ragouts and gee-gaws). When the French culinary arts developed into something we would recognise as "Modern", after the revolution, a lot of it top end French chefs moved to England for secruity and money. Infact, the only great 19th C. chef that I can think of that wasn't in London much was Careme and he was mostly in Russia, not France.

This is all just considering food culture as dining for the upper middle classes upward. I don't consider this the most important aspect of any particular group of peoples food culture. If by magic, fine dining in London became the best (French Mode?) in the world, I still would say that British food culture had a long way to go as long as 1) Supermarkets stocked more pre-prepared microwave shite then raw ingredients ; 2) all the points that Tony and others have made.

[Tonyfinch]

Steve,I don't know about schnapps but we can certainly take credit for Palwins No 1 .

Why sneer at Scotch? Scotch whisky is a great contribition to world gastronomy.It has its experts and devotees  much as wine does and is savoured and appreciated across the gastronomic world.Like wine,a lot of it is bog standard but at the higher levels it reaches great intensity and complexity and can be a truly 'wow factor' drink.

I rarely drink spirits these days but given the choice I'd opt for a well chosen luxury malt whiskey over a Cognac or Armangnac any day

[Wilfrid]

I think Wilfrid was getting at this yesterday (if it was his birthday yesterday, then I guess he’s well hung over and out of operation today).

Oh, I wish.  Out of action because still unpacking crates from the recent move.

And this thread?  What have we wrought?  If anyone wants to get back to the original discussion - and it's by no means obligatory - it was not about whther Britain has better food than France.  This may shake Steve P, but I agree with him entirely that, across the board, French food is much better than British food.

I disputed two points with him.  First, that it was a reasonable generalization to say that British food is "crappy" or well-represented by spam and marmite - there has always been bad food in Britain, but always good food too, and standards have improved dramatically over the last twenty years.

Second, that British gastronomy fell behind French gastronomy because the upper classes in Britain agreed to feed the people badly, whereas the upper classes in France (and Italy too apparently) agreed to feed them well.  This preposterous theory, after being re-cast in various forms, eventually emerged as a plot by the industrial/mercantile class around the time of the great "enclosure".  I think this has been pretty thoroughly falsified by some of the contributors here (as for the French theory, it too has some problems, like the Revolution for example).

Now, over to Steve to concede that he was, after all, wrong on both counts:        

[Steve Plotnicki]

Tony-I'm not sneering at Scotch. All I have said is that it isn't a great contribution to food culture. Maybe it is to drinking and those two have some relation. But I don't consider the development of hard liquor as much of a contribution. Now what the hell is Palwins?

Adam-You have raised an interesting point which is what effect does insularity have? When cultural traditions become pervasive to the point that they become stylized, does the demand put on artisans to deliver a final product that conforms to that style inherently force stagnation to the point becoming outdated? An example would be the stringent rules placed on establishments by Michelin and whether that has somehow contributed to what French chefs aspire to. Is that not somewhat similar to what the general thinking was in England at the time and did the encouragement to rely on known and internal custom hurt the development of what we would call British cuisine?

[Tonyfinch]

Palwins No 1,along with Nos 2,3,4,5,6-all tasting exactly the same-sweet kosher Pesach wine from Israel of course.What do you lot drink on Seder night over in NYC?

(sorry,this is way off thread.any answers on the holiday board maybe?)

[Steve Plotnicki]

Tony-We have our own brands of sweet wines that are kosher for passover. The two biggies being Maneschevitz and Mogen David.

Wilfrid-I didn't see your response at first so I am editing this in. I do not know why you just simply say that I was right  . What has come out of this discussion is a number of things. The most telling thing being Tony's post on General Board about British custom of considering beer as food. If that doesn't put the icing on the cake as to just how bad the food was and still often is, along with Tony's list of things that Ale tastes good with, and how awful those things are, you just can't be convinced. But I will simply rely on the evidence and let others decide. As for a plot or conspiracy, well I'm unclear as to why you say there wasn't a plot? "Enclosure" is a plot perpetrated on the masses by the landholders with the Government's approval. When they perpetrated their plot did they all sit in a big room and say "we are doing this to deprive the people of Britain of good food?" Of course not. But did they all realize what the effect on the masses would be? Of course they did. That's why they did it. They wanted to make more money from the land and they knew that with making things more efficient, quality would suffer. So indeed it was quite a large plot if you ask me.

As for France and how their custom arose, let me just point to

how they did not have an equivelent of enclosure. Furthermore, the French were encouraged to not only farm the land, but to develop and maintain the best parcels. Instead of forcing people into cities to work in factories with poor conditions, they developed an entire codification system for ever single piece of land in the country. But that in and of itself isn't sufficient evidence as to their intent. But what is sufficient is their making the information about the system not only available, but pretty much mandatory as something a French person needs to know. I don't know about you but if you ask me, that sounds like a pretty big plot

by the French to maximize their agriculture in a way that is intended to benefit the populace. Do you think not?

So can we now get past the argument of exactly just how good or bad British food is/was? The degree that it is/isn't isn't really relevent to my question. If it is indeed worse than France's, why is that? And that question is framed within the context of Steve Klc's comment that Mennel wrote that up until the 1700's the cuisines were pretty much the same as well as my point that it's better now. Why wasn't it better then? And I have heard all the answers about wars. But France and Italy suffered through wars too. So did the U.S. Britain has no exclusivity on war as a reason.

[A Balic]

Steve - if you look at the 19th C. English cooking, it wasn't a time of stagnation it was a time of innovation. A flood of French chefs coming over the water bringing over all their skills and creativity that had been developing in France since the 17th C (eg. their cooking started to look like mordern food, rather then medieval/Renaissance cookin). Soyer developing the gas range to Escoffier founding modern cooking all occured to a grat degree in London. But, this doesn't have anthing to do with British ethnic cooking, which was replaced by the "New Style" of cooking (French). So when I said that British food died out in the 18-19th C. I mean that the British (lets face it English) ethnic food died out. Proberly the one only real traces that remained at top end dining was the British love of large Joints of plain roasted meat or plain roasted game.

Basically, the English had a puritanical streak about food at all levels of society (keep it plain and simple) and there meat sources were more abundant and better quality. While the French developed their cuisine the English didn't (some of this was most likely the English response to what was seen as French). The end result was when times changed, the old English type of cooking just could not compete. So to answer your question, then yes, adherence to known and internal custom did hurt the development of English cooking. And no doubt having the Michelin system proberly does hurt the development of French cooking, depending on how dynamic that system is.

[Jinmyo]

I don't think that British food was or is bad. But British cooking often was and is. The produce can be fabulous. The hard cheeses splendid.

[yvonne johnson]

Steve (Plotnicki): Just out of curiosity, may I ask where in the UK—apart from London-- you’ve visited? I am, of course, including Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.

[Wilfrid]

Let me remind you, Steve, of your words:  "The reasons that the British ate spam and marmite and the French didn't is that the French upper classes agreed to feed the lower classes in France far better than the upper classes in Britain agreed to feed their lower classes. It is really that simple."

We have explored two centuries of British history, from enclosure (planned); the industrial revolution (not planned); a series of major European and world wars; famine; mass migrations of population; and so on and on.  Did the events of the last two centuries have an impact on British social and economic life, including eating habits.  Er, yes.  Is the process well-described by your statement?  Let the world judge.

By the way - which century was the big French plot?  Just so I can get a grip on it, and consider whether it is a plausible explanation of France's limited industrialisation in comparison to Britain's.

Beer and food.  I didn't think Tony's comment about beer being considered food needed clarification, but apparently it did, and I provided that on the other thread.  And now his list of "awful" food.  I think this must be what you meant:

1.  English pies and savoury puddings-steak and kidney,beef and oyster,game and rabbit pies,pork pies

2.  English cheeses

3.  Fish and chips

Well, I am scanning that list for anything which can be described as "awful".  It would be patronizing to tell you that there are some awful versions of some of those dishes to be had.  But let me take what you have said at face value.  I think you conceded elsewhere that there are a few decent British cheeses, so I suppose you don't mean that.  You must mean that English (or British) savory pies and puddings, and fish and chips, are - as a general proposition awful.  Now, I infer from your posts that you know good food when you eat it.  I can only conclude that you have eaten lousy pies and fish and chips.  Sorry.

I suppose an alternative take on your meaning would be that the pies, puddings and fish and chips are awful because they're not French, or cooked using French techniques.  But then you would truly be in the grip of an obsessive dogmatism!

[Steve Plotnicki]

Yvonne-In 1977 a friend of mine and I spent 3 weeks in England. Two weeks in London at a B & B in Cartwright Gardens in Bloomsbury, sandwiched around a tour of Britain in a mini. Cambridge, York, Newcastle, Edinburgh (I have fond memories of Henderson's Salad Bar there,) Liverpool, Stratford, Bath. I was very much into food at the time, and was quite expert in ethnic cuisine.

During the first week in London, we tried everything from Fish & Chips (greasy but it had its attraction) to Pub food, Chinese, Greek, Italian, Salt Beef, etc. Aside from the Chinese (and the place I ate in Canton is there to this day, and still is good in my book,) they to a style stunk both in terms of quality of ingredients and cooking ability compared to what I was used to in the States. Then when we arrived in Bath and foolishly thought we would be able to eat at A Hole in the Wall without a reservation, we ended up at a posh Indian in town and that was my first real experince with Indian food which was pretty much something we didn't have in the U.S. at the time. From that point on, we ate Indian at least one meal a day.

And just to highlight how significant an impression the food had made on me, I had just come from 3 days in Italy and 4 days in France (this was my first trip to Europe) and where the quality of silly things like a crepe made by a sidewalk vendor was so so good that it made the food in Britain seem especially poor. And it pains me to say this but, when I was in Oxford three weeks ago, the taste of the food at Le Petite Blanc had the same bad taste that the food did on my trip in 1977. It was like they had transported me back in time. And it was even more disappointing because I had become used to the better quality that was now available throughout most of London.

But all things have good parts to it and the music we saw on that trip was unsurpassed for its time. A highlight being The Stranglers, The Jam and Cherry Vanilla at The Roundhouse in Chalk Farm. A friend of ours from backhome was the guitarist in Cherry Vanilla's band and we hung backstage. The friend I was traveling with took photos and he recently told me that he has photos of Sting hanging around with us backstage before he was Sting. In the same two weeks we managed to see Derrick & The Dominoes at Hammersmith Odeon and The Eagles with a symphony orchestra at Wembley Pool, and I believe what was the original production of Jesus Christ Superstar.  It made up for the food  .

[A Balic]

So can we now get past the argument of exactly just how good or bad British food is/was? The degree that it is/isn't isn't really relevent to my question. If it is indeed worse than France's, why is that? And that question is framed within the context of Steve Klc's comment that Mennel wrote that up until the 1700's the cuisines were pretty much the same as well as my point that it's better now. Why wasn't it better then? And I have heard all the answers about wars. But France and Italy suffered through wars too. So did the U.S. Britain has no exclusivity on war as a reason.

Steve - one of the reason why various wars effected the English food culture to a greater extent then either France or Italy, is that neither of these countries had the same social structure as Britain. By the mid-19th C. about 85% of the population was in service. Not running there own little peasant plots of land and developing their own peasant cuisine, with charming little wines to match. Couple this with several other facors, such as the English puritanical streak, the active suspicon of foreign food and several laws that prevented the rural poor from hunting or earning very good wages to buy food, and this isn't much of a way to develop a rich food tradition.

With the industrial revolution and the several wars, you can see how you get a comparitive decline in English food. There are all types of statistics on a census that was made on the general health of the English male population in 1917 of military age. Out of every nine men (that had not been involved in the war) three were fit, two were of middling health, three were physical wrecks and one was a chronic invalid. These are mostly the working class and the lower middle class so no food, let alone food culture, for them. Times were tough on the upper classes as well and in England they are the people who count in terms of food culture. In 1942 restuarants were limited to offerning meals worth a maximum of five shillings and was apportioned by protein content. So if you want oysters (four shillings a dozen at Simpson's) you had to miss out on the meat course. Rationing actually improved the general diet of the population (in terms of nutrition), but it didn't do much for English food culture. None of this happend in France or Italy. Times were tough in these countries as well, but they got the good roll of the dice in terms of there social history and food culture, to allow them to cope a bit better.

[Wilfrid]

Just adding to what Adam said, the original point I made (when I assumed we were discussing recent British gastronomy) was that the government commandeered the essential parts of the food industry in the early part of the war, centralizing production to avoid famine.  As an example, all milk production was commandeered, shutting down the manufacture of artisanal dairy products overnight.  It took many, many years for the industry to recover from these emergency measures.

None of this applies to France, or Italy, and still less to the States.