Bouillabaisse - the history, and a modern recipe
There are many poor people’s meals that have been transformed into haute cuisine, with expensive restaurants and celebrity chefs vying for the right to claim that they are the only ones to offer the real thing at outrageous prices. Bouillabaisse is one of the better-known.
Tradition places the origins of bouillabaisse with the Phoceans, an ancient Greek people who founded the port that is now Marseille around 600 BC. It was a fish stew known as kakavia , which the Roman goddess Venus may have fed to Vulcan.
Today’s bouillabaisse was created by Marseille fishermen (or, more likely, their wives), using that part of their catch which was not worth taking to market - mostly bony fish and the tinier crustaceans and molluscs. They boiled them in sea water, adding fennel and garlic. In the 17th century, after tomatoes were introduced from America, these became part of the dish.
In the 19th century, Marseille became prosperous and restaurants began to serve an up market version of bouillabaisse to their patrons. They used fish stock instead of seawater, and added an exotic and expensive spice - saffron.
Now that it was an upper-class dish, bouillabaisse spread first to Paris then right around the world, with its ingredients being modified to use whatever was locally available.
The name of the dish comes from the way it is made: stock is brought to the boil, one set of ingredients is added and the pot is allowed to drop off the boil, then it is brought to the boil again before adding the next ingredient. The process is repeated as necessary, depending on the cooking times for each set of ingredients.
Normally, the stock is served over bread or toast and rouille (a garlic mayonnaise with saffron) and the fish is served separately. Here is a modern recipe based on the one in Petit Larousse de la Cuisine, a French cooking dictionary:
INGREDIENTS
rascasse (scorpionfish)
grondin (gurnard)
lotte (monkfish)
congre (conger eel)
dorade (sea bass)
merlan (whiting)
saint-pierre (John Dory)
étrilles (small crabs)
onions
celery
garlic
leeks and other vegetables
bouquet garni
Bone and trim the fish.
Brown the onions, celery and garlic in olive oil, then add the heads & trimmings of the fish. Cover with water, bring to the boil and simmer for 20 minutes. Now go through the ‘boil - add next batch of ingredients - repeat’ cycle in order of size of the fish so that the biggest bits get cooked longer. Keep the most delicate fish (the saint-pierre and the merlan) for now. Add saffron and cook over high heat for about 8 minutes. Add the saint-pierre and the merlan, then cook for another 5 to 8 minutes until everything is tender.
Drain off the broth, put a slice of bread covered in rouille at the bottom of each diner’s bowl, then pour broth over it.
Serve the fish and crabs on a separate plate.
Optionally, add orange peel and white wine or cognac to the broth before the final cooking stage.
***************************
This business of taking the pot on and off the heat sounds suspiciously like mumbo-jumbo to me. Since the dish was originally cooked over an open wood fire producing a steady heat, tossing handfuls of wet fish into the pot would have brought it off the boil (and still will if you leave the hob controls alone). It would then be a case of waiting until it reached a rolling boil again before tossing in the next lot. NotDelia is away from home for a few days, but I’ll ask for her professional comment when she gets back.


You flatter me! But I’m not an expert on making bouillabaisse.
Even so, I also don’t “get” the idea of boil/don’t boil. I’d think you’d just want to keep the whole thing simmering throughout. As you say, adding cold ingredients to the pot will take it off the boil anyway, so I’m not sure either where this on/off idea has come from. Probably the most important thing would be not to overcook any of the fish.
You’ve raised another very interesting idea here about how paupers’ meals have been transformed into haute cuisine. Very true! You’ve even got at least one ingredient listed above which is a good example - monk fish. It’s now very fashionable - and expensive! When I was a kid it wasn’t perceived as a desirable fish at all (well, not in Scotland anyway). It was mainly used as a substitute for prawns to make some kind of fake scampi product. (That’s from memory, I haven’t done any research on this yet.) These days monk fish is very sought after and is considered to be a delicacy.
Same with crabs. I remember lobster fishermen throwing them back in, or giving them away at the harbour. No one wanted them. Different story now, though. So what’s changed? Fashion? Perhaps. And the celeb chefs went through a phase a few years ago of making it very trendy to cook cheaper cuts of meat - lamb shanks being a great example of this. Lamb shanks are great, but I can’t help feeling that a lot of food and cooking is just all about fashion, and what’s flavour of the month. It’s just a big hype.
It’s a shame. I would always rather eat fresh, tasty food than fashionable food, but I guess when you give chefs celebrity status then they’re always going to try to beat their rivals with some “new” things. New is often good, but not always. Brits still love their old favourites - prawn cocktail and steak and chips.
I’ve noticed while writing my food blog that it seems to be quite fashionable to do new takes on classic food. I’m into that too. Now you’ve got me wondering if I’ve been sucked in to the latest fashion.