French cooking

[Ptipois]

With their fingers, by the way, since she introduced the fork to that rude and backward nation. biggrin:

←

"Rude and backward nation" — I don't think that's exact. By the way the fork was used by the nobility in Europe since the early Middle Ages and was known long before Catherine de Medici. It was never widely used until the early 19th century; before that, it was more used to hold the meat while cutting it than to take food to one's mouth. Spoons and knives were the norm. Of course the fork is essential to much of Western European cooking as it is now, but Indians and Africans use their fingers to eat and I don't think they could be described as rude and backward.

[Adam Balic]

In terms of French home cooking, is there a French 'cuisine' or is it more regional?

[Carlovski]

It's my understanding that if Catherine d'Medici had been married off to some Dutchman rather than to Henry II, The Hague would be the culinary capitol of Europe and the French would be eating boiled vegetables (not turned) for dinner.   With their fingers, by the way, since she introduced the fork to that rude and backward nation.  (And what would haute cusine be like without and endless variety of forks to eat it with?)

←

Catherine de Medici married the future king of France, Henry II in 1533. Without the Italian influence and the introduction of herbs and Italian produce..not to mention the hoardes of Italian chefs she brought with her...French cuisine wouldnt have evolved as it had...

Keeping that in mind..almost half a century earlier, in 1475, King Matthias married the daughter of the King of Naples. In order to make life beyond Italian borders bearable(oh!!!...the suffering women endure to perpetuate the human species. and for world peace...within europe, that is), the bride brought with her ingredients not previously known in her new marital country..tomatoes, onions, peppers..of course, Italian chefs. Now...how often do you write home about Hungarian cuisine?

←

That's a good trick - I didn't think tomatoes and peppers had been discovered then....

[FaustianBargain]

To paraphrase A. Bourdain, if not for the French, our idea of cuisine would be ham steaks with pineapple rings. To expand on that, I dare say without the French we'd have nothing worthwhile to discuss in these forums. We owe the French for the very idea that food is more than merely fuel. From that aspect, whenever you attempt to elevate anything you cook above the category of "grub", you are cooking French.

This is difficult to understand unless you've had a "French Epiphany", that moment when you realize the Zen of food. This is why French cuisine is often misunderstood, maligned, shunned and feared. Without the French Epiphany, there is a persistant and ingrained notion that there exist recipes, magical combinations of ingredients and cooking times, that will produce a transcendent eating experience. We get tangled up in the mechanics; we study knife techniques and meticulously measure out ingredients; we squirt squiggles and use toothpicks to achieve height, we roam from restaurant to restaurant. Not to say that such activities disappear in the wake of the French Epiphany, but they become secondary to the true essence of cooking.

This was my French Epiphany: Oeufs dur Mayonnaise at the original Laduree, almost 20 years ago. Just a plate of hard-boiled eggs with mayonnaise, crusty bread and a glass of the house rose. It was all so good it made me weep. I still weep when I think about it. This simple dish is so stripped down, every aspect is layed bare. It is a dish that thwarts any attempt to compensate for inferior ingredients; it is a celebration of the ingredients.

To have transcendent Oeufs dur Mayonnaise you must understand and give attention to each element of the dish, which means you actually begin preparing the dish when you go to the market and harrass the egg vendor to get the freshest eggs, and select the best-tasting mustard and oil for the mayonnaise, and conduct exhaustive taste-tests to find the perfect salt; in fact, you had begun to prepare this and every other dish when you first took spatula in hand and decided to cook something. Therein lies the French Epiphany: each dish, no matter the cuisine, has a soul, a platonic essence that can be revealed to the world. Whether you're making an ommelette, or stir-frying some greens, or baking some enchiladas, or grilling a burger -- if you honor the soul of what you are cooking, then you are cooking French.

←

Amen, my brother.

[FaustianBargain]

On the other hand, the Italian presence at the Hungarian court in the Middle Ages and Renaissance has influenced cooking as well, but the results were totally different: they helped to shape a genuinely Hungarian tradition, just as the Italian influence helped to shape a genuinely French tradition without being its main inspiration.

Re the Hungarian import from Italy: Thank you for putting it across better than I did with the story of King Mattias and the Princess of Naples.

The evidence is seen when one places Austrian cusine side by side with Hungarian cuisine.

But French terroir( and culinary history, as you mentioned in your next paragraph that I failed to include as a quote in my reply) wins as is evident from the comparison between Hungarian and French cuisine.

Edited March 17, 2005 by FaustianBargain (log)

[Ptipois]

In terms of French home cooking, is there a French 'cuisine' or is it more regional?

←

It is difficult to answer this simply...

To sum it up, there is a repertory of "common" dishes that are likely to be made all over the country (blanquette de veau, gigot-flageolets, navarin d'agneau, cailles aux raisins, île flottante, etc.) and regional dishes (ficelles picardes, poulet vallée d'Auge, ratatouille) that are more likely to be made in their own region of origin but are also considered part of the national "heritage" and thus may be prepared anywhere.

However, it is rare that even one dish from the common repertory is not attached, more or less, to one particular region. For instance, the navarin d'agneau with flageolet or haricot beans is considered French without being more specific, but its origins are found in the Paris-Ile de France region, and it is a little known fact.

To get an idea of this, you may take a look to an old basic French cookbook, like Ginette Mathiot's "Je sais cuisiner", or "Les recettes de tante Marie", whatever, to realize that French cooking is a huge collection of recipes from different regions gathered into a coherent ensemble. In fact, French cooking is very regional.

[FaustianBargain]

touche.

I am sure they have been 'discovered' by the late 15th century. Not popular or wide spread in Europe. Maybe.

My only guess is that the princess, Beatrix of Aragon, probably summoned from her home the new vegetables after she came to Hungary. She was 17 when she got married to King Matthias.

edited to add: googled and found this.

Tomatoes originate in South America and were domesticated in Mexico. They were introduced to Europe by the Spaniards in the 1500's and were initially regarded with grave suspicion because of the reputation of Solanum-like fruit as being poisonous. Even by 1800, people in northern Europe were anti-tomato whereas in Spain it had become the most commonly eaten vegetable.

That's a good trick - I didn't think tomatoes and peppers had been discovered then....

←

Edited March 17, 2005 by FaustianBargain (log)

[Ptipois]

The evidence is seen when one places Austrian cusine side by side with Hungarian cuisine.

←

Indeed, but I believe the Hungarians have a personal food genius. I adore Hungarian cuisine, and I'm not too hot about Austrian cuisine. Sorry if there are any Austrians around, but I seemed to notice that every dish the Hungarians did well, the Austrians did less well.

Hungary is (to me) a gastronomic heaven that can be compared to France in some ways. And I don't believe the Italian influence was so important, even if it acted as a trigger. How does a culinary tradition appear and evolve in a given place ? 1) The people who live there have to love eating and drinking, they must have a culture of pleasure (which is not the strong point of the Dutch, btw) - 2) their land, geography, climate, etc., must be suited to well-developed agriculture, fishing, cattle-breeding and, in the case of Hungary, winemaking.

But I think the culture of pleasure, and a sense of celebration of God's creation through the things he gives us to eat (this respect and poetry are the root of proper food manipulation, therefore of cooking), and finally a culture of pharmacology through food preparation (common to China, India, the Mediterranean, the Middle East and also rural France) are just as essential. These are the conditions that result in superior cuisines. A royal marriage is not enough.

[FaustianBargain]

I agree. The Hungarian genius that differentiates them from the neighbouring eastern europeon cuisines lies in their use of wine for cooking. It adds several layers of complexity to what is usually a boring dish from the rest of the region. The use of cream and their appreciation of a good sauce!

Hungarian cuisine enjoyed a strong peasant tradition, no doubt helped by the nomads who went in and out of the region. Alongside the hearty and 'colourfully adventurous' peasant dishes, there also existed the opulence of the cuisine reserved for the royalty during the time of the Austro-Hungarian Hapsburg Empire. Also, I suspect that the geographical blessing of its southern orientation may have contributed greatly to its superiority over other eastern europeon cuisines.

Another interesting and vastly underestimated cusine of the region(well..some people may have issues whether it belongs to Europe..but imo, it is) is that of Georgia. Georgian food is utterly delectable and nothing like any of her neighbours. Georgian wines and tea are not very popular, altho' they are indeed unique. Because it served as a port of entry and exit for every invader who jumped between Russia and Europe, there are influences from everywhere. Yet, it is unique.

The evidence is seen when one places Austrian cusine side by side with Hungarian cuisine.

←

Indeed, but I believe the Hungarians have a personal food genius. I adore Hungarian cuisine, and I'm not too hot about Austrian cuisine. Sorry if there are any Austrians around, but I seemed to notice that every dish the Hungarians did well, the Austrians did less well.

Hungary is (to me) a gastronomic heaven that can be compared to France in some ways. And I don't believe the Italian influence was so important, even if it acted as a trigger. How does a culinary tradition appear and evolve in a given place ? 1) The people who live there have to love eating and drinking, they must have a culture of pleasure (which is not the strong point of the Dutch, btw) - 2) their land, geography, climate, etc., must be suited to well-developed agriculture, fishing, cattle-breeding and, in the case of Hungary, winemaking.

But I think the culture of pleasure, and a sense of celebration of God's creation through the things he gives us to eat (this respect and poetry are the root of proper food manipulation, therefore of cooking), and finally a culture of pharmacology through food preparation (common to China, India, the Mediterranean, the Middle East and also rural France) are just as essential. These are the conditions that result in superior cuisines. A royal marriage is not enough.

←

[therese]

This is difficult to understand unless you've had a "French Epiphany"...

←

What makes this epiphany particularly French?

Is it necessary that the epiphany occur in France? Must one actually be French, or would it suffice simply be eating French food cooked with French ingredients by a Frenchman?

If the epiphany occurs outside the French context (and yes, it does) is it somehow diminished?

[chefzadi]

Is it necessary that the epiphany occur in France? Must one actually be French, or would it suffice simply be eating French food cooked with French ingredients by a Frenchman?

Ideally it must occur in France, you must be French and the food has to cooked by a Frenchman or woman.

If the epiphany occurs outside the French context (and yes, it does) is it somehow diminished?

I'm afraid so...

We're in the France forum discussing French cooking. So one person shared an experience, very poetically. I suppose if this person had such a culinary moment in Hoboken it would have been called the "Hoboken epiphany" in the New Jersey forum. Sure it can occur anywhere.

The thing about epiphanies is that time and place are hard to predict... hard to say who will have one, if ever...

[Ptipois]

I assure you that my tongue was wholly in cheek, and that I was merely underscoring the strong belief in some circles that haute cuisine flourished in Italy for many decades before it reached France (along with the fork, and ice cream) when Catherine brought her court to Paris. 

Besides, even in Dutch hands, the fork would at least have reached as far as New Amsterdam and Hudson Bay.

←

I suppose that your tongue was also wholly in cheek when you exported some of the discussion here to the Italian forum with a few quotes of Ivan's and mine, ending with "you're not going to take that, are you?"

Isn't that some sort of trolling? It is at least very rude.

As I think your efforts to bring the wide and complex phenomenon of French cooking down to a simple matter of royal alliances are somewhat misplaced.

Again, I have much admiration for Italian cooking, and I don't mean to minimize it, much less to engage in a discussion like the one you're trying to start somewhere else. I only have trouble understanding why it it so hyped these days, outside of Italy (and especially in Britain), when the rave is sometimes only over Parma ham, pasta, roasted vegetables and olive oil, which are not really cooking after all.

[therese]

Is it necessary that the epiphany occur in France? Must one actually be French, or would it suffice simply be eating French food cooked with French ingredients by a Frenchman?

Ideally it must occur in France, you must be French and the food has to cooked by a Frenchman or woman.

If the epiphany occurs outside the French context (and yes, it does) is it somehow diminished?

I'm afraid so...

We're in the France forum discussing French cooking. So one person shared an experience, very poetically. I suppose if this person had such a culinary moment in Hoboken it would have been called the "Hoboken epiphany" in the New Jersey forum. Sure it can occur anywhere.

The thing about epiphanies is that time and place are hard to predict... hard to say who will have one, if ever...

←

Very true.

The original query was why so few questions about French cooking are posted to this forum. So, asked and answered.

[Busboy]

I assure you that my tongue was wholly in cheek, and that I was merely underscoring the strong belief in some circles that haute cuisine flourished in Italy for many decades before it reached France (along with the fork, and ice cream) when Catherine brought her court to Paris. 

Besides, even in Dutch hands, the fork would at least have reached as far as New Amsterdam and Hudson Bay.

←

I suppose that your tongue was also wholly in cheek when you exported some of the discussion here to the Italian forum with a few quotes of Ivan's and mine, ending with "you're not going to take that, are you?"

Isn't that some sort of trolling? It is at least very rude.

As I think your efforts to bring the wide and complex phenomenon of French cooking down to a simple matter of royal alliances are somewhat misplaced.

Again, I have much admiration for Italian cooking, and I don't mean to minimize it, much less to engage in a discussion like the one you're trying to start somewhere else. I only have trouble understanding why it it so hyped these days, outside of Italy (and especially in Britain), when the rave is sometimes only over Parma ham, pasta, roasted vegetables and olive oil, which are not really cooking after all.

←

If you found it rude, I apologize. I just thought that having partisans of French and Italian food, two wonderful cuisines, going at it would be interesting and illuminating.

I also thought that when I began speaking of forks and dynasties -- and "disses" --that people would understand that I was being facetious. I mean, come on, do I have to use a smilie every time? Do you think I really thought that The Hague could have been the culinary City of Light? Ilove the Dutch, but please....

Finally, if you're going to say that Italian food is "not really cooking after all," you're going to have to expect someone to challenge you. That's the fun right? To be challenged, to think and to respond.

[albiston]

I do agree with Chefzadi (and Ivan, who wrote my favorite post too). As a general rule I believe that, delicious as it is, Italian cuisine is a bit overestimated the world over and French cuisine a bit underestimated in the way that it is not taken for what it really is.

I hope I can be excused if I steer the discussion slightly more onto Italian cuisine but it is hard to read certain comments and remain silent.

Maybe not too strangely, as Italian, I see it exactly the opposite way. Plus I get the impression that dissing Italian cuisine is becoming the new sport for the slightly snobbish gourmet. In contrast to you, I firmly believe Italian cuisine is deeply underestimated, and scarcely known in its real essence. Yet, it is after all a matter of taste, and I deeply appreciate your last concept, that "not taken for what it really is" which I could apply in its entirety to Italian cuisine.

Now Italian cuisine is primarily a cuisine based on perfect ingredients with not that much preparation or skill over them. For this reason, perhaps, I think it tastes the best in Italy, in its own surroundings, and I'm not interested in Italian restaurants outside of Italy.

Well, this is the sort of statement that gets me annoyed to the bone. It is an extremely superficial view of Italian cuisine, sadly widespread over and over by journalist, both Italian and foreign, who are obsessed with Italian trattoria cuisine and see little beyond that. Let me take your statement a piece at a time:

- "Italian cuisine is primarily a cuisine based on perfect ingredients": yes, and then again no. How many perfect ingredients do you think there are available to the public, or even small restaurants and trattorie? The real perfect ingredients land inevitably in high end places and in the homes of the few gourmets willing to pay for them. The rest of the food cooked, sold and eaten in Italy is prepared with ingredients which are far from perfection. And yet everyone talks about the superiority of Italian ingredients all the same. Maybe we're lucky to live in a land whith such a bounty of produce, fish and meats that we can afford to sneer at things that are a step below perfection, and that could indeed be true. Or maybe we have ingredients that are not perfect but unique, and therefore seem perfect to the uninitiated. On the other hand there is one aspect that is way too often ignored: the education to taste every culture should subject its new generations to. I've noticed a few times how most Italians who like cooking develop a certain sensibility for how a dish should tatse which can hardly be replicated even with superior technique by a foreign cook. If you like, this is nothing else than generations of mothers passing down their knowledge of ingredients and tastes to the new cooks, be it home ones or professionals. Sometimes I wonder if the exportability of French cuisine has not been achieved through a slight but general loss in the quality of its products. Heresy maybe, but just a thought.

-"with not that much preparation or skill over them": I agree on the preparation part. The Italian concept of cooking tries indeed to keep the integrity of the ingredients landing on the plate, offering a pure flavor.Seeing some dishes from across the Alps, be they French, Austrian or German we cannot avoid thinking that the cook has tried to satisfy his ego more than remaining true to the ingredients he uses. But again, this is a matter of upbringing, education and philosophy of food which I'd never fight over. To each their own. What I absolutely disagree on is the "not that much skill" part. To my eyes it is a joke. Could you please make paractical example for this? To my eyes regional French and Italian Cooking use pretty much similar techniques when taken in their complex. Or are you talking about haute cuisine? In that case you're ignoring centuries of high end traditions, those of the many noble courts that gave Italy its stunning art and architecture, and also a cuisine sadly rarely quoted today. Forget Caterina de Medici: look rather at Meastro Martino's Libro de Arte Coquinaria, published in the XV century, a book considered even by French food historians Odile Redon and Francois Sabban (together with the Italian Silvano Serventi), as the best and most modern cookbook of the time. Some of the methods in that book are still up to date. Reducing Italian cuisine to simply cooked ingredients is not much different than reducing Indian cuisine to curries or Chinese to stir-fries.

The real problem here and the one why I'm not mad at you for these statements is that the real culprits for the widespread ignorance on Italian cooking is non else than us Italians. We have traditions but forget them, have (occasionally maybe) great chefs, but fail to build a cuisine school around them, and, most of all, we are unable to explain what our cuisine is abroad, something which the French have mastered. After all changing this is a good reason to be here on the eGullet forums

[chefzadi]

I assure you that my tongue was wholly in cheek

I understood that immediately. I like your sense of humour Mr Busboy and appreciate your posts.

[chefzadi]

I do agree with Chefzadi (and Ivan, who wrote my favorite post too). As a general rule I believe that, delicious as it is, Italian cuisine is a bit overestimated the world over and French cuisine a bit underestimated in the way that it is not taken for what it really is.

Just to clarify, I didn't say anything about Italian food here. I was admiring Ivan's post and Ptipois was agreeing with my admiration for the poetry in that post.

[albiston]

I do agree with Chefzadi (and Ivan, who wrote my favorite post too). As a general rule I believe that, delicious as it is, Italian cuisine is a bit overestimated the world over and French cuisine a bit underestimated in the way that it is not taken for what it really is.

Just to clarify, I didn't say anything about Italian food here. I was admiring Ivan's post and Ptipois was agreeing with my admiration for the poetry in that post.

←

Don't worry I got that. And I should make clear that I am in no way denying the huge role of French cuisine .

[Ptipois]

Maybe not too strangely, as Italian, I see it exactly the opposite way. Plus I get the impression that dissing Italian cuisine is becoming the new sport for the slightly snobbish gourmet. In contrast to you, I firmly believe Italian cuisine is deeply underestimated, and scarcely known in its real essence. Yet, it is after all a matter of taste, and I deeply appreciate your last concept, that "not taken for what it really is" which I could apply in its entirety to Italian cuisine.

I am sorry that a few of my remarks were taken out of context and amplified in such a way that the consequences much exceeded what I meant in the first place. But for some practitioners of forum ballistics, this is some kind of sport. I can't help it. However what's done is done and I must try and make myself understood more clearly.

I agree perfectly with every single thing you've been writing here on Italian cooking. I never wished to diss Italian cuisine and I don't think I am a snobbish gourmet at all. I too believe that Italian cuisine as I know it is deeply underestimated and, when I wrote that "I'm not interested in Italian restaurants outside of Italy", it's because I have yet to find — in non-Italian surroundings — Italian cuisine of the quality I'm used to. And what I find there is so far from what I've been used to that, really, I have trouble understanding what the fuss is all about. It used to be said that the three best cuisines in the world were French, Italian and Chinese. I think there are others, but I do agree about Italian — what kind of Italian cooking is another question. At any rate, IMO, not the one that has been made internationally trendy outside of Italy during the last ten years or so.

I was partly brought up near the Italian border, in the comté de Nice, by a couple of cooks from the Genoese region who had a country albergo in the mountains. That's where I first experienced excellent Italian cooking, I was practically brought up on it. That's also where I got my interest in cooking in general. Later on, I spent a lot of time with another family, half-Italian, whose cooking was more Piedmontese, the lady being from Cuneo. She was an outstanding cook too. Therefore I had a good experience of delicious Italian food at a very early age and I believe my knowledge of Italian cooking is not superficial. This is why I do understand what you are talking about.

Also, please note that I haven't mentioned trattoria cuisine even once. And my experience of food in Italy had nothing to do with journalism.

On the other hand, I find it really unfair that the sort of Italian cooking that is so hyped and successful in English-speaking countries is, in fact, only a matter of ingredients. It seems that cooking with pasta, balsamico, ricotta, parmigiano, olives, grilled peppers and extra-virgin olive oil, etc., is what defines it. It looks good on British TV, it makes a perfect Jamie Oliver salad, it's oh-so-sunny-Mediterranean and all, but I don't think that's cooking at all. Do you see my point? To me Italian cuisine is a different thing, it's like a secret, it is so little-known and so little-experienced outside of its borders. And so is French cooking to me, another sort of secret, very much like Italian. However, French cooking has found its way outside of France but I think that it had to sacrifice some of its mystery and some of its soul to achieve this. I think you express the same idea somewhere.

On the other hand there is one aspect that is way too often ignored: the education to taste every culture should subject its new generations to. I've noticed a few times how most Italians who like cooking develop a certain sensibility for how a dish should tatse which can hardly be replicated even with superior technique by a foreign cook. If you like, this is nothing else than generations of mothers passing down their knowledge of ingredients and tastes to the new cooks, be it home ones or professionals. Sometimes I wonder if the exportability of French cuisine has not been achieved through a slight but general loss in the quality of its products. Heresy maybe, but just a thought.

That's it, that's exactly what I'm referring to. France had to sacrifice some of its magic in order to make itself more easily exportable. But I think that this magic is in no way different from the magic of Italian cooking, which you describe very accurately as the "sensibility for how a dish should taste which can hardly be replicated even with superior technique by a foreign cook". It is my deep belief that French cooking and Italian cooking, by this respect, are identical to the core, while the dishes and tastes may differ. It is the same culture deep down. It's only that French cooking managed to develop a snotty side too.

Therefore, when I write that I think that "Italian cuisine is a bit overrated the world over", I am in fact referring to a cuisine that is not, in my opinion, true Italian cuisine but something colorful, Southern and easy to put together, with not much skill or poetry to it.

The rest of your message I am not going to reply to directly, for (and maybe it is the consequence of my expressing myself too clumsily, but again I wasn't expecting someone to fish out my words and feed them to the lions), because they are taking me to a place where I did not mean to go, and for sure you're criticizing me for thoughts that I never had and things that I never meant. I do agree with you about preparation, skill, history and everything else. I should have been more precise the first time I referred to Italian cooking, but I didn't think it was necessary at this point. I was wrong.

The real problem here and the one why I'm not mad at you  for these statements is that the real culprits for the widespread ignorance on Italian cooking is non else than us Italians. We have traditions but forget them, have (occasionally maybe) great chefs, but fail to build a cuisine school around them, and, most of all, we are unable to explain what our cuisine is abroad, something which the French have mastered. After all changing this is a good reason to be here on the eGullet forums

←

Well, as you know by now, I do not feel concerned by this. I mean, I never needed an Italian to explain to me — successfully or not — what Italian cuisine (or cuisines) is, because I litterally bathed in it from my early childhood. And very early I realized there was something unexplainable: ravioli with daube never taste the same outside of the Nice mountains. And the rabbit stew that my Genoese grannies used to cook in the Nice mountains forty years ago is simply impossible to imitate. They used a rabbit, of course; white wine, thyme, dried porcini, a bit of tomato coulis, onions and garlic. I have noted the recipe. I found the best rabbit, and I used white wine, thyme, dried porcini, tomato coulis, onions and garlic. I am a good cook, but I never managed to get this rabbit right. This special taste cannot be imitated. And it's not that the grannies refuse to tell me what the secret is: there really is something unexplainable about those recipes. I've often been in this situation in relation to Italian or French "mother" cooking. Maybe the reason why your countrymen are unable to explain what your cuisine is abroad is just that: it IS unexplainable and there is nothing you can do about it. That's also how traditions are lost, and sometimes there's nothing you can do about this either.

[Ptipois]

I also thought that when I began speaking of forks and dynasties -- and "disses" --that people would understand that I was being facetious.  I mean, come on, do I have to use a smilie every time?

←

Sorry, I am entirely deprived of humor.

[albiston]

I agree perfectly with every single thing you've been writing here on Italian cooking. I never wished to diss Italian cuisine and I don't think I am a snobbish gourmet at all.

←

First of all let me excuse myself if I gave the impression of calling you a food snob. I was making a general remark, sadly based on experience, which was badly put. Having read your previous messages I never would have labeled you one .

Regarding the rest of your message there's only one thing I can say: thank you for taking the time to clarify your thoughts and experiences. It was a real pleasure to read your post; smart and well written. You could have put a few of those thoughts in your previous post though .

[Pan]

[...]In order to make life beyond Italian borders bearable(oh!!!...the suffering women endure to perpetuate the human species. and for world peace...within europe, that is), the bride brought with her ingredients not previously known in her new marital country[...]how often do you write home about Hungarian cuisine?

←

Funny that you mentioned that. I was thinking of Hungarian food when I read this:

[...]Some interesting points have arisen in the past few posts. French cuisine is highly regarded as the finest in Europe for points west, northwest, north, northeast and perhaps east of France, but much less so in Spain and Italy. Is there a lot of truth in that?

←

I wonder whether Hungarians do generally consider French cuisine the finest in Europe, or indeed, how much they think about the cuisine of that fairly faraway country as a model of or example of anything highly relevant to their cuisine. Like Ptipois and perhaps more than you, I consider well-executed Hungarian cuisine damn fine! If you held a gun to my head and made me decide, based on my experience so far of eating in Hungary and France, I'd vote for France, but arguably, the two cuisines are different enough to make comparisons somewhat problematic, and there are some terrific things about Hungarian cuisine that are different from terrific things about French cuisine. For example, in Michelin-starred gastronomic restaurants in France, I've had fantastic lobster salad with hazelnut oil, but the savory thing I liked best in Hungary was uborkasalata (cucumber salad), and nobody (at least to my knowledge) does it like they do. French pastries? Spectacular! But Hungary is, to say the least, no slouch in that department. I'll ante up a somloi galuska and raise you a gestenygolyu and a gundel palacsinta. Can you beat that? Probably, but I think a really fine meggyes retes is a standoff against a delicious tarte rhubarbe. And I'm not so sure Hungarians don't have the French beat or at least played to a draw in the soupy stew category. Sure, there's bouillabaisse, but soupy stews are a major category of hearty Hungarian food, what with porkolt and gulyasleves. I guess the upshot for me is that I see little real use in comparing Hungarian -- or, for that matter, Italian -- cuisine unfavorably to French cuisine. When any of those cuisines is really good, I'm not thinking about not eating the other one at that meal, and all of them stand on their own as worthy of appreciation, as indeed do various non-European cuisines including Chinese, Indian, and Thai.

And of course, the elephant in the room when I mention national cuisines is Adam's question about regionality...

[Bux]

Clearly I had good reason to limit my thoughts to Europe. The czars seemed to drink champagne and favor French food. Some, though not all, the finest restaurants in the Netherlands, the UK, etc. are French. That's not the case in Italy or Spain. Although individual chefs and even movements or schools of cuisine may be influenced by France, the best and finest restaurants in Italy are Italian and in Spain they are Spanish. Hungary is to the southeast and most inscrutable in terms of language and cuisine. There is of course, good local cooking all over the world, even in homes where the local cooking is not hightly regarded or refined, but the French have been able to devvelop a court and then a professional cuisine they've been able to export. The Italians and the Spanish, although immediately adjacent to France, have not been takers. Should a French chef want to broaden himself by crossing the border, he'd find his credentials worth more in every country but Italy and Spain, I think.

[FaustianBargain]

Like Ptipois and perhaps more than you, I consider well-executed Hungarian cuisine damn fine! If you held a gun to my head and made me decide, based on my experience so far of eating in Hungary and France, I'd vote for France, but arguably, the two cuisines are different enough to make comparisons somewhat problematic, and there are some terrific things about Hungarian cuisine that are different from terrific things about French cuisine.

Hungarian cuisine is the best if you consider Eastern Europeon countries as a 'family'.

French cuisine, because of its elegance and superior terroir, wins over Hungary in all of Europe.

Georgian cuisine, argubly Europeon, is unique in that it resembles none of its neighbours. In its simple elegance and terroir, it equals France. Like any good cuisine, it has strong, sturdy, hearty peasant origins. But the country, though stunningly and heartbreakingly beautiful, is burdened by its geographical location and its political upheavals. It awaits it's discovery. It has traces and influences from Turkish/MiddleEastern/Russian/Europeon/French(through the Russian connection) kitchens.

All three cuisines have one thing in common. A stubborn culinary consciousness among the people. I suspect that is what makes a country/culture's cuisine better than others. There is pride and appreciation.

Edited March 18, 2005 by FaustianBargain (log)

[Ptipois]

Regarding the rest of your message there's only one thing I can say: thank you for taking the time to clarify your thoughts and experiences. It was a real pleasure to read your post; smart and well written.

Well, thank you!

You could have put a few of those thoughts in your previous post though  .

←

Yes, I know. Sometimes I say stupid things that are just stupid things, sometimes I say stupid things that are just undeveloped ideas.