British cooking/Britain's food history and reputation

[Steve Plotnicki]

Just to stay away from food guys, a British friend once told me that at the turn of the century that 97% of the people worked in the service. That always sounded a bit high to me and after Wilfrid's calculations, doesn't sound possible. But it might be possible if it was 97% of the people outside of those who worked in factories or who served in the Armed Forces. Possible?

[Wilfrid]

I think my initial calculation made no sense.  Try this.  Exclude factory workers, armed service workers, and anyone else who is a worker of some kind and doesn't employ servants.

Then, for every one million of the remaining population (assuming these are all adults), if 85% are in service, and 15% not, each of those 15% employs on average around six servants.  That's on average, and the 15% presumably includes women, who are much less likely to be employers of servants than men.  I am not saying it's impossible, but it sounds a lot of servants per average male employer.  97% would be more implausible, of course.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Wilfrid-Have you not seem Gosford Park? Those people had millions of servants  . Did your family not live that way?

[Wilfrid]

Have you not read James's Washington Square or Howells' A Hazard of New Fortunes?  You didn't get rid of your butlers with the British, you know.

[macrosan]

Let's kill this thread because we are never going to agree on ....

Never thought I'd live to see the day  

[John Whiting]

One must go back in history for a clue as to why Britain, more than any other European country, lost what had been a rich and fertile culinary tradition, even at the peasant level.  English food historian Colin Spencer sums it up brilliantly in the Cambridge World History of Food. His encapsulated analysis of the collapse of British dietary health explains how it resulted primarily from the Enclosures (c18th-early 19thC) followed by the industrial revolution. The peasantry was driven from the land and the women from their kitchens, so that there was no longer a place where cooking skills could be passed on to the next generation “Rural life was radically altered and partially destroyed and whole villages were abandoned. Within a generation, cooking skills and traditional recipes were lost forever, as the creative interrelationship between soil and table (the source of all good cuisine) had been severed.”

This is the context of Oliver Goldsmith’s “The Deserted Village”:

 Far, far away thy children leave the land.

  Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,

  Where wealth accumulates, and men decay.

This continuity was preserved in France, where it was a much more important factor than any imagined benevolence on the part of the aristocracy. Fernande Costes wrote in 1976, “My grandmother . . . was always hungry. I would sit on her lap . . ., listening to the throbbing of her hunger as she evoked memories of . . . her bitterness towards her rich and tyrannical employers. . . . It was amazing how hunger, even at that age, struck me in my relationship with my parents, ‘Eat up your soup or you’ll get nothing else.’ How it continued to govern my ties with my mother and how typical she was of the end of the last century when poverty was total.” (Bonaguil ou le chateau fou, Seuil, pp.7-8)

The promotion of “cuisine terroire”within the context of modern prosperity has given us a grotesquely romantic view of how the French peasants must have eaten. (It also leads to ridiculous arguments over the "authenticity" of dishes such as cassoulet which made use of every available scrap.) Perhaps the greatest accomplishment of the Italian Slow Food movement has been to demonstrate that the evolution and preservation of a genuine cuisine is dependent on a social and economic system which supports the artisans who produce it.

[Steve Plotnicki]

John Whiting-That was an excellent post. And the reason it was excellent was that it started with the premise of British culinary tradition not being up to what it could have been for nearyly 300 years and it avoided the ongoing argument of whether it happened or not. And all the diversionary arguments about it not happening until the 20th Century. Rubbish. And I'm not talking about the food.

But there are a few things I would like to probe. The concept of "cuisine terroir" is a marketing concept. But fortunately it is based on hundreds of years of knowledge as to what can be grown in each different parcel of land. So it is an outgrowth of the continuity you speak of. I mean how else would one find

where espelettes grow the best unless one is attempting to grow them? So I don't think that people are offbase when they have romantic notions about how French food got that way. That is because the romance isn't really about the food, but about a way of life that created a superior product. But these days, that product has been substantially altered and homogonized by many things but quite often E.C. Union rules which in effect have had a similar effect as the enclosure laws did. Like the eliminiation of artisinal cheesemakers in France because cheese has to conform to the rules.

The other thing you say that I believe incorrect is your description of "scraps" being used in the cassoulet. The origin of a Cassole, or Pot au Feu or the Jewish Cholent (Dafina for Sephardic Jews) was that it was difficult to make a fire and a pot was kept over a lit fire at all times. This was especially important in Jewish households where religious law prevents you from making a fire after sundown on the Sabbath. But you can add logs to an existing fire to keep it going. So a pot full of cholent (similar to cassoulet but using lentils instead of beans as well as no pork parts) was put on the fire on Friday afternoon before sunset and would cook all night until it was served for lunch after synangogue on Saturday afternoon. So the concept of the dish isn't based on scraps, it is based on using meat that will withstand the cooking time and will not get overcooked. And different cuts of meat get added depending on needed cooking times. Cassoulet isn't any different. It arises out of the "one pot cooks all" concept  where houswives in French villages could bring their own cassoles filled with whatever to a community oven for baking that was lit on certain hours and on certain days. Bread was made in this manner too, and still is in certain parts of Burgundy I understand whre they still have community ovens.

But your comment about Slow Food and what they have shown is spot on. But that brings us back to the heart of the question as to why different countries made different choices and why given that they started out sort of the same, it became so disparate from one country to another.

[Wilfrid]

It is an interesting question, and would be worth pursuing if we could get away from the question of whether each piece of evidence is consistent with Steve P.'s original "simple as that" theory or not.  

And believe it or not, I don't believe Steve's entirely to blame for us getting stuck in that rut.  Not entirely.

Question which intrigues me, and I don't know the answer, is why Britain industrialized in that period to a far greater extent than France.  Was it simply that Britain had the wealth to do so?  Obviously, industrialization brought benefits as well as causing all kinds of problems (and not just in the gastronomic arena).  It contributed to Britain's powerful international presence in the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries.  What were the mercantile class in France up to during the period?

And Germany?  Big industrialization, but in some regions only - that's my vague recollection.  Correct?  

(I am aware this is probably very basic socio-economic history, and wish I was better informed.)

[John Whiting]

There are enough possible origins and variations of the cassoulet to fill a book, which they often do. (I'm aware of the Jewish cholent as one possible root, which is quite plausible.) There are so many contradictory traditions. One modern convention is that it is cooked in a slant-sided cassole like a squashed flower pot -- I picked up a set of them from the Not family pottery in Languedoc where they're still made for the regional restaurants. The cassole is baked in the oven and the crust broken -- some say nine times -- so that it gradually becomes thick and rich. But Anatole France reported that his favorite cassoulet was made at a restaurant where the dish had been kept simmering continuously on the stove for twenty years. No crust there.

I suspect that the cassoulet is a dish which over the centuries has embraced a wide range of prosperity as well as of ingredients. It would have this in common with bouillabaisse, which arguably goes back to the first Phoenician settlers of the Marseille area, but was also what the fishermen's wives did with the ugly little buggars like the rascasse which were often still unsold at the end of the day.

All these cyclical one-pot dishes allow for a lot of variation. My father was once a circuit-riding Methodist preacher in Kansas and Nebraska. There was a lady in one parish who always gave him lunch when he was passing through. One day she served up a particularly thick and delicious soup. My father asked for the recipe, whereupon the good lady through up her hands and cried, "Lor'! There ain't no recipe for soup! It jes' accumulates!"

[Steve Plotnicki]

Wilfrid-Gee you finally got around to my question of why did they take it? Drew Smith (from memory) seemed to be saying that the French peasantry revolted when the aristocracy tried to hunt the game in what were then public forests.

At the heart of this question is a completely social issue. The moneyed classes in Britain made a conscious decision to do this and they had to know what the results would be. And in France, not as a matter of benevolency but as a matter of coming to terms between the classes, the French were smart enough to know that allowing the peasants to maintain the land was a great social benefit for everyone. For them as well. And it kept them (the peasants) off their backs about wages. I have a friend who was an Italian TV personality and he always used to say that as long as they give the Italian population a reasonable place to live, delicious and affordable food and football on the weekend there isn't going to be a revolution.

Somehow (and this is intended to take a swipe at the moneyed classes in Britain,) they calculated they could get away with it, had the gumption to try it, and somehow they sold it to the people and it worked. I have such curiosity as to that issue because in a democracy it would appear to defy  logic that it could happen. And maybe the democracy in Britain at the time wasn't a "true" democracy and not everyone's needs were well represented, or maybe not represented at all. I'm sure there is an answer because it is a function of continuity that people like Brillat-Savarin and Artuse were able to codify the various cooking techniques that had evolved  in their respective countries as a direct result of that continuity.

[Jinmyo]

I just thought I would mention that John has some very interesting reviews of Paris bistros on his site. Well worth a look. Thank you, John.

[AdamLawrence]

Steve P: the 'democracy' at the time just wasn't. Even after the 1832 Reform Act only 2 per cent of the UK adult population had the vote (before 1832, the percentage is almost impossible to calculate because there was no common national franchise qualification). It's only after the 1884 (or was it 1885) Third Reform Act that Britain got anywhere near universal male suffrage. And women, of course, didn't have the vote until after the first world war. Britain had no real pretentions towards democracy at this time.

[Wilfrid]

Steve, I am trying to raise the level of debate, but it's like pushing porridge up hill.  Your "why did they stand for it?" question is as incoherent and unworthy of consideration as it ever was*, and it's hard to discuss these issues at all with someone who thinks British peasants had the vote in 1760** (see Mr Lawrence), or that the French aristocracy were "smart" when it came to maintaining terms between the classes (save me some work, and just put "guillotine" in your search engine - yes, the aristocracy certainly kept the peasants "off their backs". Their necks, however...).

Look, shall we have an interesting discussion about the thoughtful posts from people like Adam and John Whiting, or shall we just carry on sneering at each other?

By the way, you conceded way back that the "decision" by the British moneyed class may not have been conscious and that they did not necessarily foresee the results, but there is no point me quoting that, as you will accuse me of "cutting and pasting".

*Just to knock this on the head: Perhaps you are trying to ask, not why the mass of poor people in Britain have historically tolerated poor gastronomy (a stupid question), but why the poor and oppressed tolerate social injustice instead of rising up to overthrow it (a timeless question).  If so, you have your pick of conservative analyses in Thomas Hobbes or his 20th century interpreter Michael Oakeshott, or a range of socialist analyses in the Marxist, Marxist-Leninist and anarchist (Bakunin, especially) traditions.  I wish I knew who was right (although I have my preferences).

**not to pin you down to a particular year, of course, take anywhere between 1750 and 1850 you like.

[AdamLawrence]

I don't see any particular reason to quibble with the basic thesis that British food culture atrophied and decayed (is that tautology? It's Friday afternoon and I'm too tired to think about it) because the masses were forced off the land into either urban slums or wage slavery on large farms with no real access to the land and its bounty because of enclosure.

Steve's 'why did they stand for it' question is another matter entirely. What you're essentially asking is the basic question of British political history - why have we never cast off our ruling class? Now, if someone wants to fund me to write a thesis on this topic, I will gladly oblige - I've always fancied doing a D.Phil. Failing that I recommend you read Burke's _Reflections on the Revolution in France_ for an explanation of why the British ruling class has proved so enduring. But it can't be answered simply, and so I resign from this thread in favour of a couple of pints and a bottle of something red over dinner with my wife

[Wilfrid]

I have only one disagreement with you, Adam.  it can be answered "simply", and Plotnicki's just the man to do it.

Over to you, big boy.

(Clue:  It will be something about us lacking "gumption".)

[Steve Plotnicki]

Wilfrid-Here is your twisted logic at work. You quoted me as saying,

"By the way, you conceded way back that the "decision" by the British moneyed class may not have been conscious and that they did not necessarily foresee the results,"

Did you see the word "may" in that sentence? Does that leave the possibility open that they *might have*? So exactly what concession have I made?

You keep avoiding the obvious question. Food is more than a nutritional item. Good quality food is a social benefit, and certain countries ended up with a system that for all intensive purposes treated it that way. Whether it happened on purpose or by accident is of no importance to this question. But that isn't what happened in England. And obviously, the population's willingness to treat food the way they did impacted the quality they ended up with. And if at the time the Brits demanded better quality food, someone would have created the supply to meet the demand. And that's because there is as much money selling food as there in selling widgets.

So none of this happened by accident. There are loads of reasons, all socio-economic as to why it happened. And maybe you just don't like the way I framed the question (why did they take it?) But if you spent as much time trying to help frame it properly we might have nailed down the answer by now. But instead, you have been spending the time queerying why I haven't framed it correctly which is tiring. So if you want to raise the level of debate, stick to the topic. And the topic isn't did Steve P get the theory right. If that's what you want to keep discussing it can only be about your attempt to establish some type of superiority. A debate I'm not interested in having under the guise of British food.

[John Whiting]

A lot of misinformation can be avoided and a lot of useless debate bypassed if anyone who is interested goes to Paul Richardson's _Cornucopia: A Gastronomic Tour of Britain_. Written just over a year ago, it takes the reader around England, Scotland and Wales, introducing us to local specialties -- some traditional, some newly invented -- which can hold their head up with anything in Europe. At the same time, he doesn't pretend that they're easy to find on every street corner, or that the mass of food which is easily accessible in the provinces isn't disgusting almost beyond one's imaginings.

Paul is a good friend of Colin Spencer, and so he understands that a British culinary tradition has had to be rediscovered by a process of  gastronomic archaeology. At the same time, he's aware that "British" food is now integrally blended with the ethnic cuisines of our immigrant population, to the point where chicken tikka massala is virtually our national dish. The last chapter is a work of genius, in which he balances the showcases of the celebrity chefs against the neighborhood ethnic hangouts which are gradually achieving a quality and a quantity to rival New York's at the height of American immigration, before the iron gates were slammed shut.

At the end of the chapter he gives us a quote from Jane Grigson which should be carved on every kitchen wall: "We have more than enough masterpieces. What we need is a better standard of ordinariness."

[Wilfrid]

Steve, as for trying to establish "superiority", I guess it's my reaction to being called a "knucklehead" when I point out, mildly enough, that something doesn't make sense.  Iw ould much rather conduct this discussion affably.

It is - and I am being sincere - hard to know what you are saying because it does, inadvertently or not, keep changing.

Last time around, you said:  "The moneyed classes in Britain made a conscious decision to do this and they had to know what the results would be."

A conscious decision, and they had to know the results.  That's simply different from the admitting that they may or may not have foreseen the consequences.  And it remains different, no matter how loud you raise your voice.  

But, as I said, I am happy just to forget about trying to clarify your theory so we can see whether it's right or not.  I plan to sit back and read some of these genuinely interesting posts by other contributors (unless you call me a knucklehead again, of course).

[Steve Plotnicki]

Wilfrid-You haven't spent any time trying to clarify my theory and you have spent all your energy trying to pick away at my concepts. And now, when that has been pointed out to you, you have decided to "sit back" instead of contributing to the core of the thread like John Whiting has done. You actually have a lot to contribute to this thread but you have been holding back because you were committed to proving me wrong instead of actually fleshing out what happened and why. And that is why you were called a knucklehead. Because time and time again in spite of the many times I asked you to stop making the conversation about me you insisted on it.

[yvonne johnson]

John, I enjoyed your posts. Paul Richardson's book doesn't seem to be available through amazon.com (over here in US), but I found it on amazon.co.uk, and have just ordered it. And I agree with Grigson, who also knows her charcuterie and all things French: there are British masterpieces.

Wilfrid: Speaking of Hobbes, I've got a soft spot for him. His collars were squint, like he didn't notice. And he played tennis when he was 70. Seemed quite a cute fellow.

[Steve Plotnicki]

John-You have brought up an additional good point which is when a country has an indiginous cuisine that is weak, it is easily overcome by the cuisines of immigrants that move there if those cuisines are more interesting. It is true in the U.S. Whatever there was of traditional American cuisine has very much fallen by the wayside to things like  pizza, bagels, pastrami, spare ribs, sushi etc.(that is in big cities with immigration.) And it's the same for England with tikka masala. And in Germany, kofte kebab has become the national dish. Notice how in France, Spain and Italy ethnic food has become popular but not to the extent that it overshadows the native cooking.

As for cassoulet, I'm  a big believer of the "it happened that way because they needed it to" school and I find your explanation of the housewives using up the leftover rascasse as most plausible. That's why I think dishes like cassoulet, gratins, etc. have more to do with access to community baking facilties (access to fire) than to culinary tradition. The tradition grew (not the invention of the dish mind you)because they had access to a certain type of fire for a certain time period. Then they honed the ingredients over time to make it taste better. I can't remember who wrote the story of a local baker who cooked people's gratins for them in his big wood fired oven for a small fee.

[Wilfrid]

I saw that practice in Morocco not long ago.  By which I mean the local bakery providing a communal oven.  Women queuing up outside tiny, open-to-the-street bakers in back streets of Marakkesh, bearing their ready-prepared tagines.  it must indeed influence what you're going to cook and when.

I am ashamed to say I didn't make a cassoulet this past winter.  My wretched store of duck confit turned green - never happened before.  

(Confused...which thread am I on...?)

[Lord Michael Lewis]

I am ashamed to say I didn't make a cassoulet this past winter.  My wretched store of duck confit turned green - never happened before.  

Oh the shame of it!

Nice to see John Whiting here, as I think Yvonne mentioned his Paris writings are a valuable resource even if he can't resist punning his own name.

[John Whiting]

And in France I can't resist making hotel and restaurant reservations as Monsieur Merlan.

[Tonyfinch]

John-You have brought up an additional good point which is when a country has an indiginous cuisine that is weak, it is easily overcome by the cuisines of immigrants that move there if those cuisines are more interesting.

That is not the main reason.Britain has a far more developed attitude towards multi-culturalism and multi-ethnic development than France,Italy or Spain (a protestant/catholic thing?)

Regardless of the standard of its indigenous cuisine Britain welcomes the tikka masala as a valid entity in itself.In France it would be greeted with suspicion and sneers.