The historic success of French cuisine

[Wilfrid]

It is an explicit theme of defenders of British cuisine that French produce - the meat in particular, and above all the beef - was poor in quality, and so needed to be disguised by technique. Mennell can't find a basis for this belief in fact, and I have no idea whether it was truth or prejudice.

The belief is the basis, of course, for Hogarth's famous picture, which depicts a joint of English beef being envied by the fat French monk and scrawny French solider.

Look right here.

[John Whiting]

In the older British cookbooks I have, the "Pudding" came before the meat.

But these were puddings in the manner of Yorkshire Pudding; i.e., starchy stodge to fill up the diners so that they wouldn't want so much meat.

[Wilfrid]

The "dessert" type puddings evolved from those, I assume. After all, the traditional ones are usually a fairly savory dough or sponge, made with lard, but stuffed with bits of fruit, or drenched in some kind of syrup or custard.

[macrosan]

Surely 1870 marks the date of the Paris Commune. Where notoriously outstanding cooking was to be had.

If you like rat mornay.

Oh yes, Rat Mornay, yummy. And of course a side of Asperge a la Bastille.

[lizziee]

Like Wilfrid, once I started researching this topic, I couldn't stop. However, Wilfrid still gets the grant to go to Paris for further research. Of course, if he needs an assistant........ I hope I haven't been redundant.

Again, using the Great Chefs of France as a reference, Blake and Crewe theorize that many French chefs went to Britain because "Britain was for so long the richest country in Europe and it was there that people of wealth, in a more stable society while political unrest reigned elsewhere, could provide the conditions in which cuisine could flourish."

The great French chefs left an indelible mark on cuisine in Britain; they cooked in Britain, but they might as well have been in France. There was Louis Eustache Ude, a contemporary of Careme who worked at Crockford's Gaming Club in London. It is said that Jules Gouffe "who raised the Jockey Club to a shrine of gastronomy. There was Bignon, at restaurant Riche, who was famous for his sauces. There was Magny, who invented his petite marmite and did wonders with ecrevisses a la bordelaise." There was Alexis Soyer who worked at the Reform Club and designed one of the finest kitchens in the country ---"many features of his kitchens remain in the reform Club, 140 years later. "And then there was Escoffier who with Cesar Ritz "created the concept of the grand Edwardian hotel, with its splendid luxury and cosmopolitan menu of dishes" at The Savoy Hotel, later the Carlton and then other Ritzes. According to Blake and Crewe, Escoffier's genius is evidenced in his Le Guide Culinaire in that he codified "almost everything to do with cooking, explaining it in scrupulous detail and bringing up to date much that was old-fashioned. He distilled the experience of a century and added to it his own extraordinary flair." It was Escoffier who "brought cuisine to is peak and spread the gospel of French cooking.

At about this same time, the gourmet-writer, as in past times, also helped to spread the gospel of French cookery. Probably, the most famous of these was Churnonsky. The influence of Churnonsky was enormous; his favorable opinions just about guaranteed success for a restaurant. He wrote extensively and covered every aspect of gastronomy and cuisine. He saw 4 distinct types of cuisine: First, "haute cuisine, 'the concentration of the finest talent and the finest talent.'" Second, "French family cooking - 'I have never eaten better than in the houses of the wine-growers of my own locality, the peasants of the Landes, Breton fisherman, Lyon silk-weavers and the workers of Paris.'" Third, "regional cooking - 'The ideal marriage of gastronomy and tourism.'" In Churnonsky's 1933 work, Le Tresor Gastronomique de France, he catalogued all the regions of France by local produce, wines, game, cheese, herbs, liqueurs, even including typical menus. Fourth, "impromptu cooking ----'done on a pot luck basis with whatever comes to hand ..... shrimps caught on the spot, fish from a nearby stream, milk from a farm close by, the best parts of the hare just decapitated by a speeding car, fruits from the hedgerows, vegetables 'borrowed' from a farm when its owner isn't looking.'" It is no wonder that Churnonsky was awarded the Prince of Gastronomes in 1927.

[oraklet]

an extreme simplification, and also an effort to unify parts of plotnickiism and wilfridism:

in this debate, there is some confusion about the wealth of france v. great britain in the second part of the 19th century. at one time, england is said to be the richest nation in the world, at other times the french are seen as the wealthiest. this seems contradictory, but isn't. it's a question of distribution of wealth. in france about 3/4 of the population were economically comfortable - whereas england had it's huge rural and urban working class living under more or less horrible conditions.

also, as lizzie points out, we're talking about many levels of cuisine. in england, with its extremely wealthy upper ten, haute or grande cuisine could flourish, but cuisine grande mere was dominant in france, be it at home or in restaurants. the reason that chefdom was (and is) still dominated by the french, may well be that fine and grande cuisine grows out of the techniques of a sound and reasonably stable cuisine grande mere (and not vice-versa).

this is, of course, more of a summing up than the result of historical, sociological or philosophical studies.

p.s.: the development of the restaurant being a result of the revolution, as well as the importance of the encyclopedic obsession of the french, are some of the other strains of this debate that have been most enlightning. thank you, everybody!

[Adam Balic]

In the older British cookbooks I have, the "Pudding" came before the meat.

But these were puddings in the manner of Yorkshire Pudding; i.e., starchy stodge to fill up the diners so that they wouldn't want so much meat.

No, not really, if you look at the recipes it is difficult to see where they would fit in the desert V savoury sliding scale. Most of the examples that I have seen are not of the yorkshire pudding type (although this exists), often the same recipe is given and you have the choice of either sticking it under the roasting joint of meat or boiling it in a cloot/cloth. Before the Russian style of serving became popularised, all sorts of (to modern tastes) weird combinations of food were served together, sweet and savoury. However, much of the contempory literature talking about the practice of serving the pudding before the meat say that yes it was a filler-upper to stop you from eating more meat. Whether this is strictly true or not is difficult to determine.

Wilfrid is of course correct with his view that they are the ancestors of "modern" plum puddings and the like. In Scotland a fruit pudding (a basic plum pudding) is sold to be fried and served with bacon, sausage etc, this is one of those nice anachronisms that you see from time to time. I have a plum pudding recipe that contains a large amount of meat in it (not just suet), I have always wanted to make it but have just never got around to it. Difficult to serve to people really, maybe if I said it was Moroccan they would go for it.

[John Whiting]

If you go back to Wilfrid's original posting which began this discussion, you will see that Colin Spencer's new book, coming out the end of October, should hold a lot of answers concerning French influence on Britain. This is Colin's advance summary from another list. Germaine Greer calls him "the greatest living food writer", which may be over the top but not by very much.

I thought this might be the opportunity to mention my own book which is being published on October 31st called: British Food, an extraordinary thousand years of history - published by Grub Street. It starts with a brief look at Anglo-Saxon Cuisine then goes onto the astonishing changes wrought by the Norman invasion when they brought with them Mediterranean ingredients and influences from Sicily and further East from the Persian cuisine itself. I follow the story to the present day. Colin

[oraklet]

"then goes onto the astonishing changes wrought by the Norman invasion when they brought with them Mediterranean ingredients"

now, wouldn't these ingredients have been introduced by the monks and their monasterial gardens? that, at least, seems to be the case in denmark.

[Adam Balic]

If you go back to Wilfrid's original posting which began this discussion, you will see that Colin Spencer's new book, coming out the end of October, should hold a lot of answers concerning French influence on Britain. This is Colin's advance summary from another list. Germaine Greer calls him "the greatest living food writer", which may be over the top but not by very much.

I thought this might be the opportunity to mention my own book which is being published on October 31st called: British Food, an extraordinary thousand years of history - published by Grub Street. It starts with a brief look at Anglo-Saxon Cuisine then goes onto the astonishing changes wrought by the Norman invasion when they brought with them Mediterranean ingredients and influences from Sicily and further East from the Persian cuisine itself. I follow the story to the present day. Colin

Great John, another Grub Street book I have to buy. That place is sending me to the poor house.

[Wilfrid]

Lizziee, I was too was struck by the penetration of French chefs into London clubs and hotels in the mid-nineteenth century. I knew of Soyer, at the Reform, but I hadn't realized how widespread the invasion was. Francatelli, although an Englishman, trained with Careme and wrote cookbooks featuring, essentially, French cuisine. He seems to have been a key figure, working as a chef for Queen Victoria, at Crockford's (like Ude), at the Reform (like Soyer) and at the St James's Park Hotel. While there, he apparently designed menus for a number of other hotels in the district. Mennell regards his work, 'The Modern Cook', as essentially a distillation of Careme-style cuisine.

Just in case any non-British readers passing through are mystified by these clubs - places like the Reform, the Garrick, the Carlton, and so on, are private member's clubs, many of which still exist today. In the eighteenth century, their clientele would have been exclusively male, but would have included wealthy and influential members from all walks of society - the aristocracy, actors, journalists, judges, bishops. They provided dinners and accommodations (and sometimes gambling) in grand surroundings. Anyone cooking at these clubs - in those days - would have been cooking for society's opinion-makers. The presence of French cuisine in such settings would have helped it become accepted by a wider society. I had overlooked this, because in the twentieth century such clubs had a reputation for the dreariest of British cuisine.

You are way ahead of me with Curnonsky (no "h"). I am interested in finding out the extent to which he championed rural cuisine grand-mere/du terroir against the haute cuisine of Escoffier, et al. It's important to recognize that French cuisine itself is not a homogeneous whole.

[Wilfrid]

Sweeping up some other interesting bits: Oraklet, do you have a cite for your comparison of French and British prosperity? - it doesn't accord with my understanding. And, by the way, the restaurant wasn't a result of the revolution - it pre-existed it, and the austerity years after 1789, if anything, slowed its development.

Adam - I love fruit pudding for breakfast.

[Steve Klc]

Indeed not homogeneous Wilfrid--most of the sources cited in this thread treat haute vs. bourgeoisie/grand mere as each on its own parallel track--evolving separately--until a "Point" in time post Escoffier (yes, I'm sorry for the pun) when a coterie of French chefs started re-evaluating--and blending--both tracks.

John--thank you for alerting us to Colin Spencer's forthcoming book. This might hold the key to an answer for you Wilfrid, when you speculate that "Anyone cooking at these clubs - in those days - would have been cooking for society's opinion-makers. The presence of French cuisine in such settings would have helped it become accepted by a wider society. I had overlooked this, because in the twentieth century such clubs had a reputation for the dreariest of British cuisine."

I'd find it interesting whether the French-trained and influenced chefs cooking at these UK clubs altered or dumbed-down their food for their audience--if at all--from what was being cooked contemporaneously in Paris and France.

[Adam Balic]

Adam - I love fruit pudding for breakfast.

Well then, you are a true born son of old Blighty! But, I thought that fruit pudding was a Northern thing or are you pulling my leg and making reference to some type of healthy Californian fruit thing you have for breakfast?

To what extent to you attribute the historical success of French cuisine to the Entrepreneurial skills of ex-pat. French chefs like Soyer? Given the man did cook and design the kitchen at the Reform Club, but was the success of his food (and other French chefs) in part due to them putting themselves in the position of actively promoting the cuisine, rather then any inherent superiority of the cuisine?

nb. smile should go after first sentence.

[Wilfrid]

I have discovered what a successful self-promoter Soyer was. As mentioned earlier, someone selling a quarter of a million copies of a cookbook in England in the 1850s qualifies as a bit of a superstar. However, Soyer worked very little in France, and the consensus seems to be that his cuisine was certainly not purely in the French tradition. Whether this counts as "dumbing down" I don't know - depends what he cooked. But this is why it's important that it wasn't just Soyer, but Ude, Francatelli, and clearly others too.

There are some Soyer recipes in Willan's 'Great Chefs' book, but only a few. However, there is a huge volume on gastronomy by Soyer in the New York Society Library, which I shall try to to take a look at.

[Steve Plotnicki]

I have to add to this thread (and I secretly think it will add to my theory although I'm not pushing this aspect at this point ) that the Bordeaux wine classifications of 1855 were an important marketing step for French food and wine. It codified an entire aspect of dining and made clear mile markers as to what quality was, and how much it cost. Not being expert on the classifications but, my understanding was that the wine export trade, which sold to predominantely British homes, clubs and restaurants of the type Wilfrid has pointed to, classified the wines according to how much money people historically paid for them. So the five first growths were the wines that historically sold for the most money. Second growths the next level etc.

I think this codification of an important aspect of French cuisine allowed diners, regardless of where dining, to tailor meals accoring to some benchmark of how they were going to use wine. The idea of making a meal of "Grand Cuisine" only to be served with a fifth growth now seemed odd when there was little written evidence to instruct people not to do that prior to the classifications. People had to be educated about wine to know. I can also point to the classifications, which was a published list, as the first time the general public had good and clear access to the information which also meant (and also supports my theory but I'm not going there now ) that commoners who might not have come into contact with the mysteries of wine could now have the information all on a single page. Clearly the negociants in Bordeaux (wholesalers) made the classifications because they *wanted to sell more wine to wider group of people.* It's an important step in the food information boom and it sets the foundation for wine writers like Robert Parker who came along a century later to further define the categories and point out some of the inherent flaws in the system.

Clearly this must have led to other types of codifications and classifications and the upshot had to be that it allowed the French to make their cuisine and wine more exportable. I will try and do a little research on when the various wine regions codified their wines and why they did so and let's see if there is a correlation to how they exported the rest of their culinary culture.

[Adam Balic]

There are some Soyer recipes in Willan's 'Great Chefs' book, but only a few.  However, there is a huge volume on gastronomy by Soyer in the New York Society Library, which I shall try to to take a look at.

Reform Cutlets, nice but not great. Actually, I wasn't thinking of Soyer in particular, I was more thinking that had all these chefs come from a different country like say, Syria, would be be eating Syrian derivative food now or would the inherent superiority of French cuisine overcome all?

[Wilfrid]

Yeah, I'm beginning to think the kernel of it is that they invented the restaurant. If Syria had invented the restaurant, maybe Syrian chefs would have been all over the map, and who knows?

[Adam Balic]

I agree the restaurant seems to be the key. Crikey, just look at the amount of posts on restaurant experiences compared to all other food related activites there are on this site alone.

[Wilfrid]

Serendipitously, I just stumbled over a bunch of menus for state banquets hosted by Queen Victoria in 1841. You know how you do.

Every single item on every single menu was utterly French. Not only written in French, I mean, but actually French dishes. So we can be confident that French was the choice of the British court by the beginning of the 1840s, at least.

This was in a book by Charles Oliver, who had been on the domestic staff at the palace, and whose father had atcually served Victoria. Oliver deals with the French influx in the early ninteenth century in brief and unequivocal terms. French chefs, left with poor employment opportunities after the Napoleonic wars, moved to Britain. Careme was the great pathfinder.

Fair enough, although I don't know exactly how it sits with the increasing popularity of restaurants in France, which I assumed continued through the Napoleonic period and after. Maybe there was a slow down. Ah, give me more data...

[oraklet]

wilf

i'm sorry, i can't at present quote from any source but my memory on the prosperity of england v. france at the said time. there are some circumstances that will speak for it, though. the english rural population were incredibly impoverished during the industrialization, and so was the ever growing working class. it should be remembered, that to the farmers who had been chased away from their land, the only alternative to starvation and the road, was the terrible conditions in the big cities. now, in france, this social upheaval did not take place to the same extend. in the wake of the revolution, the farmers actually owned their land, and could make a living from it. and the tradition of a strong and widespread state carried through the revolution, so that a good deal of the middle class were employed by the state, departement or commune. their wages, of course, were for the most part not grand, but they were stable.

these, i believe, are facts. and i believe they're relevant.

as for the restaurant, i must have misinterpreted some of the earlier posts: i thought the chefs saw themselves out of employers because of the guillotine, thus having to cook for the common man.

anyway, i'll see if i can find some sources, but my time is quite limited by work, wife and four kids.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Oraklet - These points have all been made on the board before. Yet for some reason, we can't get Wilfrid to ackowledge that the French public having better access to quality cooking via restaurants had something to do with French cuisine becoming dominant. Because not only did haute cuisine become the international standard for fine dining, bourgois cuisine became the international standard for home cooking.

Though I haven't offered the proof, it seems to me that this phenomenon is unique to France because they cut the head off the upper classes (literally that is) and it meant that a wider range of people could enjoy the talents of the culinary elite (cooking skills that is.) I doubt that the same phenomenon occured in the U.K. for as wide arange of people. And while Wilfrid and Adam keep saying that England's bad lot happened due to the wars and rationing, I believe there was already a great disparity between the two countries prior to the wars. Or why else would people in England need to eat pie?

[Adam Balic]

Because they ate PATE, you ignorant bastard .

[Wilfrid]

Steve is an interesting phenomenon; an intelligent chap who seems incapable of learning new things.*

Quite briefly, as it's about the twentieth time: the French aristocracy was not wiped out by the revolution. The monarchy was restored after Napoleon's reign, and France was ruled by a king or emperor right through to about 1870. If you open any page of Proust, you will meet a galaxy of wealthy nobles, and Proust was writing about French society around the turn of the (19th/20th) century.

Rebecca Sprang's excellent book explains that the revolution was not an immediate spur to the development of the restaurant. The years after 1789 were characterized by austerity, and a hostility to conspicuous consumption, persisting through to the "Declaration of Pleasure" under Napoleon in 1799. And the evidence I have adduced previously on this thread suggests that the state of France after the Napoleonic wars sent very large numbers of French chefs scurrying abroad, and particularly to England, to practice their craft.

Steve's opinion remains, thus, steeped in historical hogwash.

And, as should be obvious, the discussion of the wars was a response to Steve's question about what happened to British cooking in the twentieth century - that, Steve, is what you asked about.

Oraklet, I don't pretend to be on top of all this economic history. My understanding was that the French peasantry and urban lower classes were in desperate straits through the 1780s, leading ultimately to the revolution, and that further periods of mass poverty followed the Napoleonic wars. Contemporary artists always depict the French and scrawny and starving, the British as healthy and well-fed - but doubtless I am thinking of British artists. Industrialization in Britain happened a little later, right?

*Ad hominem. Bite me .

[Steve Plotnicki]

"And, as should be obvious, the discussion of the wars was a response to Steve's question about what happened to British cooking in the twentieth century - that, Steve, is what you asked about."

Wilfrid - That isn't quite right. This conversation started many months ago and the response to the original question was that the restriction laws wiped out the quality of food in Britain. You then have the fine research you did on the ensuing 70-100 years of British dining which gets you to about 1870. But you have a large gap in British cuisine (in terms of what commoners ate) between 1870 and 1914 which is when the war started. But that period seems to be (unresearched and this is my main question) the period when bourgois cuisine and restaurants started to come to the fore in France. Because while France suffered through both wars the same as Britain, they continued a tradition of eating well after each of the wars were over. But you say, and this is where I think we split, that Britain couldn't do that because they were decimated by the wars in a way that France wasn't and you point to rationing etc. I say hogwash. There wasn't a tradition of commoners eating well before the wars started, hence, no tradition to continue and that is why the food wasn't good. The best evidence of this is that when rationing was over in Britain, the food still wasn't good. There wasn't a tradition of fine dining (except for the monied classes) to spring back to.