What is the difference betwixt a soup and a stew?

I’ve found that much of the hard doctrinal work of the law student is in learning to draw lines. What makes something obscene? Is a professorial corporate director whose university depends on donations from his company independent? What, exactly, does the word substantial mean?

I don’t do well with these questions. By the end of even my first year, though, I certainly could recite the various un-resolvable arguments in my sleep – bright lines and factors, the crystal and the mud, the functionalist and the formalist.

But law students aren’t alone in these thankless games of mental gymnastics. Rather, food enthusiasts too can sometimes be left staring at categories without answers. And though the controversies of the food world rarely disturb the august ponderings of the Supreme Court, the questions remain interesting. Late last night, in the company of nothing but a quick soda loaf combining a pound of flour, a few tablespoons of butter, a little sugar and enough buttermilk to make a dry dough, all overspeckled with dark chocolate and baked till it sounds hollow on the bottom, that realization led me directly to the topic for the last food post of my exceedingly pleasant stay here at Crescat Sententia. The great American food pioneer, Richard Olney, once tellingly wrote that “the line dividing a soup from a stew is often infirm”. Infirm though it sometimes is, I’d prefer if we now made an effort to find it – and perhaps enjoyed ourselves in the process.

One Supreme Court justice said of obscenity that he knew it when he saw it. Some stews and soups are the same way – no devious lines or clever tests are necessary to understand that if you boldly sautee chunks of tough beef in butter and oil, and then simmer them gently for a few hours in a strong red wine, and thyme, pearl onion and garlic, with perhaps the faintest tinge of rich double cream at the end, you have a stew. Nor does it need to be said that a light chicken broth, skimmed of fat and made from nothing but a free range bird, a few robust herbs, and a lot of time, is a soup – either eaten just as it is, or perhaps with a few squares of pasta (or if you’re feeling inauthentic, easily available wonton wrappers) stuffed with a mixture of pork, beef, lemon peel and parsley to make tortellini in brodo,

But not all cases fall so obviously into one camp or the other, and “I know it when I see it” is hardly a satisfying test in any case. What of bouillabaisse, the emblematic dish of seafood simmered in flavorful stock and garlic that exists in one form or another across France, whether with potatoes and mussels as in Toulon, or with cuttlefish in Martigues, or most appropriately for someone stuck in New England, with butter, hake, sole, and cod, as along the hardy Atlantic coast? In many ways, the heady, aromatic dish is quite exactly a stew, especially if you’re smart and have a generous hand with the fish, cheap or otherwise. It is, after all, merely the maritime cousin of the beef stew above, and the brother of a white wine chicken stew, one of my favorite weekly meals. But for me, bouillabaisse is a soup – not because it’s insubstantial, but because it demands nothing but crusty bread spread thickly with honest butter as an accompaniment. One reason that stew is stew is because you enjoy both the rich sauce on its own, which incidentally only gets better the next day, but also its slow impregnation of a healthy puddle of some delightful starch– whether butter rich mashed potatoes, or fluffy shards of basmati rice, or any one of the other dozens of possibilities. A stew’s gravy is there both to flavor the meat and to flavor a base- and the unthickened broth of France’s culinary pride does much, but not that.

Stew doesn’t always need to be eaten with starch, though. There must be some other line, and the versatile champion of Eastern Europe, Borscht, straddles it completely. Made meagerly, with more water than beets, with onions and a few carrots all boiled till tender, borsht is clearly a soup- and an excellent soup at that. But made with a few chunks of the cheapest beef, perhaps, or some spicy sausage meatballs, and with substantial servings of fresh beets just scrubbed and halved and then finished with any good sour cream, borscht really is a stew, even without any carb-rich base. The line isn’t the starch in this case – it’s the emphasis of the dish. In the former case, the soup’s taste is in the purple depth of the liquid’s flavor – but the latter relies on its more substantial ingredients. The former, I think, I’d serve to begin a meal – the latter might be the whole meal itself on some incredibly cold night when I have to work, but would rather eat.

Having seen my grandmother fend off appalled accusations from people who would have been entirely sated by one dish served as a stew, but claimed starvation when she called it a soup, I think people would be surprised at how important these lines are sometimes. But even if you’re not convinced, I hope most people would agree with me that pondering these kinds of lines is much more fun than wondering what the Court might be doing. After all, I don’t know what the sordid films the Supreme Court used to watch in its obscenity cases were like, but I do know that the recipes above are delicious – given the choice, I’d say pass me the spoon and the fork. Potter Stewart, wherever he is now, can keep his films, and with my blessing.