The historic success of French cuisine

[Wilfrid]

Why did the culinary fortunes of the French populace soar so high in the 20th century when the fortunes of the Brits went into the crapper?

Steve, I was answering this question of yours from July 30th, not something from months ago.

This thread has been about how and why French cuisine became so successful outside its borders, and I've seen no evidence that this had anything to do with what "commoners" were eating.

If you want to discuss everyday British food in the period before the First World War, that would indeed make an interesting thread. Do you want to kick off?

And have you got it straight about the French aristocracy now?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Okay I will farm, oops I mean frame the question.

[macrosan]

Because while France suffered through both wars the same as Britain...

Just not so, Steve. It was Britain that paid for the war from the collapse of France in June 1940 to the entry of America in December 1941. Britain was effectively bankrupted in the process, and the cost of fighting alone for one and a half years was what led to the over-hasty dismemberment of the British Empire after the war. Of course, even after the end of 1941, Britain continued to carry a huge burden of cost.

That simply didn't happen to France.

[Wilfrid]

Yes, and British agriculture and food production was centralized and run by the newly created Ministry of Food, with predictable results, whereas the French just carried on largely as normal. Britain didn't start to reconstruct its food industry until the mid-1950s. But we've told him all this before, and posted links to the approrpiate history pages. He don't want to know.

[oraklet]

wilf

am i right in feeling that you contradict yourself (somehow):

"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,"

versus

"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."

anyway, you guys still seem to overlook the fact that fine french dining is based on the same techniques as "grande mere".

and though the revolution was fought through by soldiers, peasants and workers, it was spurred by the bourgeoisie. as all revolutions i know of. the poor may wish to start revolutions, but they don't have the networks or the initiative to do it.

english industrialization started off with the small farmers seing their product, wool among other, suddenly becoming practically worthless with the opening of new markets and production methods. this happened, if i remember right, in the mid-18th century. hundreds of thousands were chased from their land as they were not able to pay their debt. most of them found work under the conditions we know from dickens and dore. many died from starvation. it is true that there were beggars and poor people in france, too, but the migration was at a quite different scale, keeping france an agriculture dominated country.

the other important difference between england and france lies in the role of the state. a centralized state will create a class of relatively comfortable bourgeois and petit bourgeois.

now, i think it must be fairly obvious that this combination of 1) a stable class of bourgeois spread all over the country and 2) easy access to good rural produce, is what lead to cuisine grande mere (no, i don't mean to say it was inevitable, wilf). and though i don't agree with plotnicki on the ideological conclusions, i feel he's right in seing it as the basis.

the nobles of proust, and for that stendhal, are a bit ridiculous, aren't they? living in their hollow worlds of still lessening power, trying to keep up appearences.

[Wilfrid]

Yes, ridiculous indeed, but not poor. And they had plenty of servants, and employed cooks. As did the American upper class way into this century. Sorry, Oraklet, I'm just emphasizing some things that Steve never wants to accept.

Yes, I did wonder whether I had contradicted myself. I have been taking information from a variety of different sources, and I do not claim to have thoroughly digested it all. It's an unshakeable fact that the French monarchy was restored in the nineteenth century, and that a fairly subtantial wealthy, titled, landed class survived at least into the early part of the twentieth century. How does this fit with the claims that French chefs retreated abroad after the Napoleonic wars. Well, it's possible that the relocation has been exaggerated in the sources I have read. Maybe it was a much smaller phenomenon. It's equally possible that the class which had formerly employed private chefs remained comparatively impecunious for some years following the wars. I am not sure which is true.

I would be interested to know more about the use of the same techniques in French home cooking and haute cuisine. I had thought that the differences were more pronounced than the similarities, and I'm a little confused here. In the period we're discussing - primarily the nineteenth century I suppose - the English gentry (non-titled, landed) were a huge and well-distributed class, and I thought the bourgeoisie was pretty substantial too. And I am not aware of any particular shortages of produce. Obviously there was home cooking throughout England, so what exactly is it that the French had, at this level, that the British didn't?

[Steve Plotnicki]

"Obviously there was home cooking throughout England, so what exactly is it that the French had, at this level, that the British didn't?"

Good ingredients, good chefs, good wines and good palates.

[Wilfrid]

Steve, you're confusing the effects, if that's what they were, with the causes. I am interested in the causes. It can't be that the French had a bourgeoisie and the British didn't, any more than that the British had an aristocracy and the French didn't.

I am still looking for the thread in which you wanted to raise, I think, the question about what the British were actually cooking and eating from the latter half of the nineteenth century through to the First World War. That might be interesting. Once we know what that cuisine was, we might be able to discuss its roots. This would be more satisfactory than attempting to explain an unknown outcome by reference to irrelevant facts. Although the latter exercise might be more amusing.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Wilfrd - I was making a joke. I guess it was too subtle for you (or unfunny.) Next time I will use a smilie.

[Wilfrid]

'Twas indistinguishable from you so-called theories, you old charlatan!

[oraklet]

"It can't be that the French had a bourgeoisie and the British didn't, any more than that the British had an aristocracy and the French didn't."

no, no, no! of course not. but it can't be denied, that france had (and has) a lot more bureaucrats than england. (ah, the onion soup of madame maigret) also, as france was (and is) a more agricultural country than england, the bureaucrats would be distributed in places (like small towns) with a more natural and easy access to fresh agricultural produce - and restaurants. they would know or be related to more farmers, too, thus "being in contact with" the produce.

so, to sum up:

france being the most powerful state in europe, was on the lead when it came to grand dining up till and perhaps after the revolution. the influence went both socially downwards and geographically outwards, so to say. restaurants, menu a la russe and codification solidified its status and saw the refining of cuisine de grandeur(?) into haute cuisine, and the widespread and relatively well paid bureaucracie/bourgeoisie had its cuisine grande mere, which became the basis of french cooking. meaning that it has now for 200 years used the same techniques and tools, and has been an ever present source of inspiration to chefs in search of the essentials. french dining, having at one time established itself as at the same time the most raffinee and the most basic, has never really been challenged.

nice try, isn't it?

but perhaps the professionals will be able to tell me that i'm wrong: it may be that the tools and techniques are not the same, and that chefs are (or were) not inspired by la cuisine grande mere. or someone with more precise data on the demographics of france and england can disprove me.

[oraklet]

and a very sweeping statement:

dining is truly important to the french, in the sense that what is eaten is important. they are supposed to be able to judge nuances in their food as well as in their language. i think one of their preferred words is "sonctueux"(?). just the way they utter it: tasting. enjoying. catalogue-ing. all wrapped up in the experience.

so it may be that it has become a matter of national identity.

[Wilfrid]

France "the most powerful state in Europe"? When?

I don't know. I am groping to understand what you're saying. Why are the [i[bureaucrats important as such? The British gentry - the squires and landowners - and the mercantile bourgeoisie, were a large, well-distributed and prosperous class. I just don't see what one might call a difference which makes a difference. If you see what I mean.

I am also not sure exactly what we're trying to demonstrate. I think there's a danger of taking it for granted that, during the nineteenth century, cuisine at the domestic level was "better" in France than it was in Britain. It was certainly different in terms of ingredients and cooking techniques.

Yes, French domestic cuisine has travelled around the world, and we've explored some of the reasons on this thread. Yes, French domestic cuisine continued to blossom through most of the twentieth century while British cuisine went through a gastronomic dark age. But a difference in sheer quality at the domestic level remains a presumption until we get some data.

[oraklet]

"France "the most powerful state in Europe"? When?"

right up till the germans had bismarck. you must remember that the reason england may appear strong through most of the second millenium, is that they have allied themselves with the enemies of first france, then spain, then france and last germany. and from the time of maria dei medici 'till louis seize, france was on the lead in every way - except that the beginning of industrialization took place in england.

[Adam Balic]

Gosh, that must be why most of the planet speaks French right?

[oraklet]

at that time france was the most powerful state - in europe. england, with her navy and related spinoffs gradually took over the rest of the world in the form of colonies. though not undisputed by france. and it is only with usa dominating world politics after ww2, that english has become the most spoken. and after all, in my childhood, french was still spoken by every diplomat in the world. well, almost.

[Adam Balic]

Yes, I was making a deliberate generalization.

[Steve Plotnicki]

"I think there's a danger of taking it for granted that, during the nineteenth century, cuisine at the domestic level was "better" in France than it was in Britain. It was certainly different in terms of ingredients and cooking techniques."

Wilfird - You're not going to waste all this good work you've done trying to sneak in the conclusion based on a subjective definition of "better" are you? I think we've come up with a number of important reasons as to why one was dominant and the other not,

1. No interuption in French agricultural tradition as opposed to the laws of restriction

2. An interuption in the evolution of British peasant cuisine as a direct result of the laws of restriction. Since the farmers were thrown off their land the tradition of simple cooking died and whichever way it would have evolved over the next 100 years never happened

3. A tradition of educating people to be chefs where it seems there was no such tradition among the British population. And to offer household servants as chefs who were not formally trained in the most complex technique of the day is not a good response. There needs to be British chefs who could cook meals in the style of the top chefs who were working at hotels and restaurants. Just like there is today.

4. Effects of the wars which took a heavier toll on England than it did in France

Now I would think that would be sufficient to conclude objectively that France was dominant and England inferior. But of course, if you like steak and kidney pie better than foie gras one would argue against it. But I thought the point of these threads was to eliminate those subjective arguments.

[jaybee]

at that time france was the most powerful state - in europe. england, with her navy and related spinoffs gradually took over the rest of the world in the form of colonies. though not undisputed by france. and it is only with usa dominating world politics after ww2, that english has become the most spoken. and after all, in my childhood, french was still spoken by every diplomat in the world. well, almost.

If power and dominance were a key criteria in the rise of national cuisine, why did not Dutch food emerge during the period Holland was so powerful? In fact the Dutch were and and have been a great mercantile force force for many years and their cuisine is virtually non-existent?

[oraklet]

"If power and dominance were a key criteria in the rise of national cuisine, why did not Dutch food emerge during the period Holland was so powerful?"

power and dominance are not , i believe, in itself a key criteria etc. but - if at the same time during the days of rivalling kings you've got power, a brilliant court and a tradition of fine dining, well, then you can be sure it was copied along with the political apparatus.

it remains a bit strange why the dutch are only known for stilleben and rijstafel.

[jaybee]

it remains a bit strange why the dutch are only known for stilleben and rijstafel.

Yes, that is my point. Herring too, maybe?

[oraklet]

no, no, herring is danish... er swedish...

oh, forget it

[Steve Plotnicki]

No the whole matjes herring phenomenon is Dutch I believe. At least that is how they spin it at the Oyster Bar in NYC when they have their matjes herring festival.

[oraklet]

hey, steve, what is

"the whole matjes herring phenomenon"?

as a true dane, i've been eating herring and stinking cheese for most of my life. have the dutch tourist board now taken the poor herrings as hostages?

[Wilfrid]

...I thought the point of these threads was to eliminate those subjective arguments.

I agree. There is no point arguing about whether boiled mutton with caper sauce is a better or worse dish than mutton with white beans, or whether boiled beef with carrots and pease pudding is better or worse than pot au feu. What is interesting is to figure out how and why each country developed the cuisine it developed, and how and why French cuisine became the pre-eminent cuisine of fashionable, professional dining in a number of countries.

By the way, I'd be most interested if anyone has the time, inclination and knowledge to be able to develop similar information about Holland, or indeed Germany, Italy or Spain.