Perhaps it would be good to stop spreading false and historically unacceptable news about the origin and diffusion of some of our gastronomic jewels.

In fact, it continues to be written that certain dishes of French cuisine were introduced there by Caterina dei Medici; that the Florentine steak is nothing more than the carbonata of medieval recipe books (is it cooked, isn't it ?, on coals?) to which the name was changed after passing English exclaimed in admiration "Oh, beef steak!" in front of a spit-roasted calf with which an entire neighborhood celebrated the victory achieved in the game of football (what we now call "in costume"); that at the banquets of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance people gorged without restraint of food; that spices served to cover up the rotting smell and taste of food, and other such pleasures.

Some rare voices try to disagree, but they are not heard, so much is the power of certain gurus of the so-called gastronomic culture. You know, one writes something that immediately appears as original and innovative, and the scribblers copy and spread it, transforming it into a sort of dogma. The dogma of disinformation, in fact. A long list of nonsense that should be completely reset.

In reality, it would be enough to consult with a modicum of attention and open-mindedness the ancient recipe books, the products available on the markets, the routes of commerce near and far, the food uses and the behaviors at the table to get closer to a reality that, however distant, it is still legible without any interpretative efforts that irremediably distort it.

And let's start by reviewing the history of dishes likeomelette, which someone connects to the Florentine "egg fish" imported from beyond the Alps by the greedy Caterina, who would have prepared it several times in the kitchen of the female convents of Santa Lucia, Santa Caterina and delle Murate, of which she was a child guest during the years of the siege place from Charles V to the city. Too bad that eggs, breadcrumbs, pecorino cheese, garlic, parsley and pepper are the ingredients of a very poor dish of the Sicilian tradition: the pisci r'ovu, an elongated omelette that remotely reminded of an expensive ingredient in shape and taste. and therefore not within everyone's reach. So?

The fact is that, far from being locked up in their smoky and crowded kitchens with busy boys, the chefs of the past went around, taking their recipes abroad and learning new ones that they then re-proposed at home. How else to explain the links of the Forms of Cury, probably from the last quarter of the fourteenth century and attributed to the "master cooks of King Richard II" of England with contemporary Italian cookbooks? Or on the important Arab contributions, often borrowed from the Persian tradition?

So the question "does French cuisine have Tuscan origins?" poses a false problem with the inevitable aftermath of parochial claims. As if a good dish must necessarily be labeled. As if taste were the privilege of one people rather than another.

Next times we will try to destroy more castles of false information. Cuisine is culture and must be respected as such.