This book of English recipes going back over 700 years is most enlightening for all the stuff which is between the actual recipes, even though the dishes themselves are a real reminder of how our cooking had (so the French tell us) gone right down hill ever since William the Conqueror kicked the bucket. (Oh and by the way, the phrase 'kick the bucket' refers to the domestic slaughter of animals, which would - in their death throes - kick the bucket which was placed below them to collect the blood of their cut throats).
The court 'dinners' (taken at around midday, which we would now call 'lunch') of 15th and 16th century renown which comprised of about 20 courses including every conceivable creature which walked the earth, flew in the sky or swam in the sea, were not so exclusively extravagant as Charles Laughton's Henry V111 might have you believe.
If there were 50 or so guests to feed, it probably took about 100 or so people to prepare all the little dishes, plus about another 50 or so of the people who went out the day before to shoot, hunt, trap, net and harvest the ingredients. All of these servants were included in the banquet, albeit after the guests had had their fill, and so nothing went to waste and the guests did not necessarily over-eat, despite existing statistics suggesting otherwise.
Noblesse Oblige meant more than minimum protection - the servants of the large household ate the same food as the nobles.
Having just returned from Germany (again), has made it all the more clear to me that the old perception of 'British Cooking' being the worst in the world is wildly out of date. This accolade was inherited from East Germany before unification, and I can honestly say that the worst meal I have ever eaten in my life was at a railway station (one of the few places which was allowed to sell meals to the communist public). Everything on the plate was grey.
Both Germany and Britain suffered horribly from post-war food shortage, and the situation was only relieved in the late 1950s with the arrival of a few Italian restaurants. France carried on as gastronomically usual, having a social system which placed agriculture and gastronomy very high on the political agenda - even now, the country can be brought to a standstill by a bunch of farmers driving a herd of sheep up the Champs Elysee, or a motorway.
About 20 or 30 years ago, the only food worth eating in Germany was from Greek restaurants. Given the choice between Wurst and Kraut or simple, tomato-based Greek imports, I would choose Dicke Bohnen every time, when on tour with a theatre company. The Greek places seem to have disappeared to be replaced with horribly ersatz 'Cuban' or other exotic-sounding joints which employ Poles whose prime ingredient is sugar.
In England, there has always been one or two pioneering places hidden away (like the now defunct, 'Hole in the Wall' restaurant in Bath), which - so I believed - specialised in typically French cooking, or handling the ingredients in a typically French way.
The reality is - of course - that up until the turn of the 19th century, most good, Northern European traditional cooking was almost identical (with a few regional variations), but the true difference was that the French never stopped their love affair with food, despite wars and shortages.
The derogatory term 'Roast-Beef' for all English citizens came about because we - since the 16th century - would rather use all the sheep we had for the wool which was making us so much money in the clothing trade. When we weren't eating beef, then we were eating mutton from sheep that were past their best in terms of wool production, or the production of lambs for more wool. Chickens were for eggs, and only slaughtered during feast days as a luxury.
How things have changed, with almost universal chicken battery-farms, and the arrival of Colonel Sanders, hand in hand with Mr MacDonald.
The Hole in the Wall was one of my late mother's favourite joints.
ReplyDeleteThe American 'Gourmet Magazine' recently voted England the 'Gastronomic Country of the Year', an accolade which (I believe) has yet to be awarded to France.
Fascinating journey, thanks Tom.
ReplyDeleteI just wish when you went out for a meal that you could GET English food. We have an Italian restaurant in our village - run by an Italian chef. So what does the local bistro/pub serve? Pasta! Then we have three Indian restaurants and a Chinese takeaway.
ReplyDeleteIf you ever desire 'gray' food Tom...stop at one of those Cracker Barrel highway restaurants the next time you are in the southern US. I've never seen anything quite like it.
ReplyDeleteMy mother (who died in 1972) adored chicken but it was only for high days and holidays - the idea of it being just an everyday food was unimaginable. My father used to tell her that he thought there was a fox somewhere in her ancestry.
ReplyDeleteOK, I see I have lost a follower. Nobody is leaving until I find out who it is.
ReplyDeleteYou're all going to stay here if it takes all night.
When it comes to food, you can't beat the French. I think the most notable restaurants in the US serve French Cuisine.
ReplyDeleteAbout 10 or 15 years ago these new fusion places started popping up. They are usually interesting, but I am not always sure what I am eating.
So, have you tried cooking any recipes from the book?
I'm still here Tom.
OK, you can go to your room now Maybe. I haven't yet tried cooking anything directly from the book yet, but I have discovered that I have cooked some chicken and almond milk recipes from Thailand in the past which would have fitted nicely into early English banquets. 'Fusion' is ok by me, just so long as it does not involve welding two incompatible things together.
ReplyDeleteI must be doing something right - I've just lost another follower. I have a feeling it might have been John Gray, who - despite all the gifts and flowers I have sent him - may have become upset about a reference to his dead dog's arsehole which I posted on his blog about 20 minutes ago. He'll calm down eventually, the old queen.
ReplyDeleteOh well, you can't win 'em all, eh?
HANG ON A MINUTE! Have you noticed that Google have changed the name from 'Followers' to 'Members'?
ReplyDeleteMuch more appropriate.
It's spelled rosbifs by the way. But re folowers/members, I have experienced the same thing recently. One left; two joined, then another left. What's that all about? I actually am not concerned about 'follows/members' as I made my blog for a particular audience and am mildly surprised by the followers who have added themselves.
ReplyDeleteOh dear lord, how severe is your ADD? First its food, then more food, then followinf issues, then guilt over Constance then more food, them you end up by talking about your member.
ReplyDeleteI should've left when you weren't looking
No, I should've asked my editor to proof my response to you before hitting "Post comment" THATS what I should've done.
ReplyDeleteRosbifs - of course, thanks Elegance. I think that when I started blogging, I had in mind a sort of follower/member who was interested/obsessed by the same things I was, then I seemed to collect a load of interior designers and small-holders/vegetable-growers. I have no idea how that came about, but somehow one sort of gets fond of the people who come to visit, and miss them when they are gone. There must be about 75 people who may/may not read all this guff without commenting, but unless at least one person responds, we all get the feeling that we are talking to ourselves.- maybe they don't read it at all?
ReplyDeleteThen you get people like the Hattats, who only have to mention that they have chosen some new material for their curtains to get about 150 comments from others telling them that they approve of their choice of fabric. How does that work? I have pretended to be jealous in the past (but I promise you that I am not - honest!), then received what could almost be described as hate-mail from people who silently read this guff, telling me to grow up.
When John posted the sad news about Constance, he also asked people not to tell him what a wonderful person he was, etc., so I didn't. Then he sent me a private email saying that he was surprised and (he suggested) hurt that I didn't leave a comment. I told him that I was confused as to which dog had died, and didn't want to put my foot in it.
Anyway, I went back to leave a comment as requested, and noticed that someone had said that the death of a dog leaves a big hole in your life. I responded by saying that it was a good thing that -when dogs die - they take their holes with them, which I thought was (though childish) quite amusing, but it sent John into a fit of pique, and he sent me another email calling me a 'twat'. I should have ignored all of it - emails and all.
Talk about my member, Donna? There's not much to talk about, really.
i actually was upset at your thoughtless comment of
ReplyDelete"dead mutt" tom, a fact I told you of twice in an email and not in the public forum
I thought you were supposed to be in Manchester getting pissed up with mates? (I also thought that you had stopped following me by 'dismembering' yourself)
ReplyDeleteAnyway it wasn't a 'thoughtless' comment. I put a great deal of thought into it, and decided that 'mutt' was the best description under the sombre circumstances. Should I have called her a 'loved one'?
ReplyDelete