 |
|
| Historic (rec.food.historic) Discussing and discovering how food was made and prepared way back when--From ancient times down until (& possibly including or even going slightly beyond) the times when industrial revolution began to change our lives. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Croissant-- history of
Has anyone explored the history of the Croissant? I find it difficult to
believe the frequently told story about the Viennese bakers celebrating the defeat of the Turks in 1683. Andy Smith |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Croissant-- history of
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Croissant-- history of
David Friedman > wrote in
: >> Satisfied? > > I don't know if he is, but in my experience the Larousse is highly > unreliable as a source of historical information, so I'm not. Well, it is free-masonic in its origin, so right there it is suspect, but do you have any reason to doubt this particular explanation or are you just being testy? -- "I'm the master of low expectations." GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Croissant-- history of
In article >,
David Friedman > wrote: > In article >, > Michel Boucher > wrote: > > > (ASmith1946) wrote in > > : > > > > > Has anyone explored the history of the Croissant? I find it > > > difficult to believe the frequently told story about the Viennese > > > bakers celebrating the defeat of the Turks in 1683. > > > > How about the bakers of Buda and Pest, then, and three years later? > > The croissant was brought to France by Hungarian bakers. The > > Larousse Gastro says: > > > > "The origin of the delicious pastry--because is more of a pastry than > > a bread--is extremely ancient; it dates from the year 1686 and it was > > first created in Budapest. > > > > "In that year, the Turks were besieging the city. To reach the > > centre of the town, they had dug underground passages. Bakers who > > worked during the night hear the noise made by the Turks and gave the > > alarm. The assailants were repulsed. > > > > "In order to reward the bakers who had saved the city in this way, > > they were granted the privilege of making a special pastry which, in > > memory of the emblem which decorates the Ottoman flag, had to take > > the form of a crescent." > > > > Satisfied? > > I don't know if he is, but in my experience the Larousse is highly > unreliable as a source of historical information, so I'm not. After a brief Google search, I have: ---- "Culinary mythology--origin of the croissant According to one of a group of similar legends, which vary only in detail, a baker of the 17th century, working through the night at a time when his city (either Vienna in 1683 or Budapest in 1686) was under siege by the Turks, heard faint underground rumbling sounds which, on investigation, proved to be caused by a Turkish attempt to invade the city by tunnelling under the walls. The tunnel was blown up. The baker asked no reward other than the exclusive right to bake crescent-shaped pastries commemorating the incident, the crescent being the sympol of Islam. He was duly rewarded in this way, and the croissant was born. The story seems to owe its origin, or at least its wide diffusion, to Alfred Gottschalk, who wrote about the croissant for the first edition of the Larousse Gastronomique [1938] and there gave the legend in the Turkish attack on Budapest in 1686 version; but on the history of food, opted for the 'siege of Vienna in 1683' version." ---Oxford Comapion to Food, Alan Davidson [Oxford Companion to Food:Oxford] 1999 (p. 232) While the history of pastry dates back to ancient times, the history of the croissant [as we know it today], seems to be a relatively new invention. Part of the problem may be how one defines "croissant." Food history sources confirm that crescent-shaped pastries were baked in Vienna during the 17th century and that they migrated to France soon thereafter. They recount, but do not confirm/deny the story of the brave bakers who supposedly created the first croissants. This is what Mr. Davidson has to say: "...croissant in its present form does not have a long history...The earliest French reference to the croissant seems to be in Payen's book "Des substances alimentaires," published in 1853. He cites, among the "Pains dit de fantasie ou de luxe," not only English 'muffins' but 'les croissants'. The term appears again, ten years later, in the great Littre dictionary [1863] where it is defined as 'a little crescent-shaped bread or cake'. Thirteen years later, Husson in "Les Consommations de Paris" [1875] includes 'croissants for coffee' in a list of 'ordinary' (as opposed to 'fine') pastry goods. Yet no trace of a recipe for croissants can be found earlier than that given by Favre in his Dictionnaire universel de cuisine [c. 1905], and his recipe bears no resemblance to the modern puff pastry concoction; it is rather an oriental pastry made of pounded almonds and sugar. Only in 1906, in Colombie's Nouvelle Encyclopedie culinaire, did a true croissant, and its development into a national symbol of France, is a 20th-century history." ---Oxford Companion to Food (p. 228) http://www.gti.net/mocolib1/kid/food...tml#croissants -- Remove NOSPAM to email Also remove .invalid www.daviddfriedman.com |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Croissant-- history of
In article >,
Michel Boucher > wrote: > David Friedman > wrote in > : > > >> Satisfied? > > > > I don't know if he is, but in my experience the Larousse is highly > > unreliable as a source of historical information, so I'm not. > > Well, it is free-masonic in its origin, so right there it is suspect, > but do you have any reason to doubt this particular explanation or are > you just being testy? The original post was based, not on any special knowledge about croissants, but on having found the Larousse to be very unreliable on other food history questions. My followup to that post gave some reason to doubt this particular explanation. Note in particular: " The story seems to owe its origin, or at least its wide diffusion, to Alfred Gottschalk, who wrote about the croissant for the first edition of the Larousse Gastronomique [1938] and there gave the legend in the Turkish attack on Budapest in 1686 version; but on the history of food, opted for the 'siege of Vienna in 1683' version." So it rather looks as though the Larousse is providing support for a story that it may have originated. -- Remove NOSPAM to email Also remove .invalid www.daviddfriedman.com |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Croissant-- history of
David Friedman > wrote in
: > In article >, > Michel Boucher > wrote: > >> David Friedman > wrote in >> : >> >> >> Satisfied? >> > >> > I don't know if he is, but in my experience the Larousse is >> > highly unreliable as a source of historical information, so I'm >> > not. >> >> Well, it is free-masonic in its origin, so right there it is >> suspect, but do you have any reason to doubt this particular >> explanation or are you just being testy? > > The original post was based, not on any special knowledge about > croissants, but on having found the Larousse to be very unreliable > on other food history questions. I also have Davidson but it was too long to reference while coughing my lungs out. I still ask you how do you know it's wrong? It may be open to questions because of the single source origin, but that single source origin may in fact be accurate. Certainly, Davidson gives no explanation of the origins of the croissant, blithely stating that it is first mentioned in X and then that a true recipe does not appear until 1906. None of this denies the origin story. The Gottschalk explanation may be anecdotal, but it may also be true. In order to be able to ascertain the veracity of one or the other, one would need to verify the products of the bakeries in Vienna and Budapest in the time in question to ascertain wheher such a product was available. Until such a time, we cannot entirely eliminate the Gottschalk explanation. As I am currently under the weather and running a fever, I will leave that task up to you :-) -- "I'm the master of low expectations." GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Croissant-- history of
>
>I also have Davidson but it was too long to reference while coughing my >lungs out. I still ask you how do you know it's wrong? It may be open >to questions because of the single source origin, but that single >source origin may in fact be accurate. Certainly, Davidson gives no >explanation of the origins of the croissant, blithely stating that it >is first mentioned in X and then that a true recipe does not appear >until 1906. > >None of this denies the origin story. The Gottschalk explanation may >be anecdotal, but it may also be true. In order to be able to >ascertain the veracity of one or the other, one would need to verify >the products of the bakeries in Vienna and Budapest in the time in >question to ascertain wheher such a product was available. > >Until such a time, we cannot entirely eliminate the Gottschalk >explanation. > >As I am currently under the weather and running a fever, I will leave >that task up to you :-) > Alas, it is virtually impossible to prove a negative. That is the advantage of culinary fakelore. People make up stories (for many reasons) and publish them. If they are good stories, they are republished, and they are usually embellished along the way. It is virtually impossible to disprove them. Culinary history is, unfortunately, loaded with culinary fakelore. The croissant story has all the characteristics of fakelore. Gottschalk makes a claim more than two centuries after the event supposedly takes place and offers no evidence for it. Until primary source evidence is found, the story should be classified as fakelore. It is the responsibility of those who offer storeis-- and all those who publish them-- to support them with evidence. It is not the responsibility of those who question the stories to disprove them. Davidson's approach is right-- he reports what the evidence he has. If others come up with better evidence, fine. That's the only way culinary history will thrive. Andy Smith |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Croissant-- history of
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Croissant-- history of
In article >,
Michel Boucher > wrote: > David Friedman > wrote in > : > > > In article >, > > Michel Boucher > wrote: > > > >> David Friedman > wrote in > >> : > >> > >> >> Satisfied? > >> > > >> > I don't know if he is, but in my experience the Larousse is > >> > highly unreliable as a source of historical information, so I'm > >> > not. > >> > >> Well, it is free-masonic in its origin, so right there it is > >> suspect, but do you have any reason to doubt this particular > >> explanation or are you just being testy? > > > > The original post was based, not on any special knowledge about > > croissants, but on having found the Larousse to be very unreliable > > on other food history questions. > > I also have Davidson but it was too long to reference while coughing my > lungs out. I still ask you how do you know it's wrong? I don't know that it is wrong. I believe the evidence that it is right is very weak--which was my point. Suppose the evidence offered had been "I know it's true because my grandmother told me." A proper response would be "the fact that she is your grandmother does not make her an expert in 17th c. culinary history." That doesn't prove the statement is false either--but it is still a relevant point. -- Remove NOSPAM to email Also remove .invalid www.daviddfriedman.com |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Croissant-- history of
David Friedman > wrote in
: > I don't know that it is wrong. I believe the evidence that it is > right is very weak--which was my point. I never suggested otherwise. > Suppose the evidence offered had been "I know it's true because my > grandmother told me." A proper response would be "the fact that > she is your grandmother does not make her an expert in 17th c. > culinary history." That doesn't prove the statement is false > either--but it is still a relevant point. Granted but its relevance is based on the same anecdotal evidence as the opposite. If we cannot accept that there are explanations that can only be recovered from anecdotal evidence, we cannot reconstruct large portions of history. Oral history then becomes refutable simply because of the lack of documentary support, whereas if any documents exist they could be reflecting only the opinions of the ruling class (as in the case of Suetonius's twelve Caesars). One test is to ask whether the information is consistent with the end result. When I was doing the biography of my thesis subject (a priest who lived between 1850 and 1930) I interviewed his great niece who had actually known him. This great niece was 94 years old at the time and she gave me valuable information concerning her great uncle. It answered two things: why was he taken out of his first parish (for expressing political views in the pulpit) and why his handshake was weak and moist (because he had had a fever as a child which left him with a tremor which was always present in his handwriting). I had no documentary evidence to back this up, beyond the fact that others had described his handshake as shaking hands with a wet towel, and the presence of a tremor in his handwriting which was obvious; indeed, no document exists that gives these explanations. It was admittedly anecdotal, but it was consistent with the facts I knew, so I accepted the information and included it in the biographical portion (with appropriate reference to the interview). Was I wrong? Absolutely not. -- "I'm the master of low expectations." GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Croissant-- history of
In article >,
Michel Boucher > wrote: > David Friedman > wrote in > : > > I don't know that it is wrong. I believe the evidence that it is > > right is very weak--which was my point. > I never suggested otherwise. The post that I responded to was by you and read: --- (ASmith1946) wrote in : > Has anyone explored the history of the Croissant? I find it > difficult to believe the frequently told story about the Viennese > bakers celebrating the defeat of the Turks in 1683. How about the bakers of Buda and Pest, then, and three years later? The croissant was brought to France by Hungarian bakers. The Larousse Gastro says: "The origin of the delicious pastry--because is more of a pastry than a bread--is extremely ancient; it dates from the year 1686 and it was first created in Budapest. "In that year, the Turks were besieging the city. To reach the centre of the town, they had dug underground passages. Bakers who worked during the night hear the noise made by the Turks and gave the alarm. The assailants were repulsed. "In order to reward the bakers who had saved the city in this way, they were granted the privilege of making a special pastry which, in memory of the emblem which decorates the Ottoman flag, had to take the form of a crescent." Satisfied? -- - When you post a quote from a source of information and end your post with "satisfied," I think it reasonable to interpret that as implying that you think the information is convincing--that you expect the person you are responding to to be satisfied. Since I regarded the source as highly unreliable, I responded accordingly. .... > When I was doing the biography of my thesis subject (a priest who > lived between 1850 and 1930) I interviewed his great niece who had > actually known him. This great niece was 94 years old at the time > and she gave me valuable information concerning her great uncle. It > answered two things: why was he taken out of his first parish (for > expressing political views in the pulpit) and why his handshake was > weak and moist (because he had had a fever as a child which left him > with a tremor which was always present in his handwriting). > > I had no documentary evidence to back this up, beyond the fact that > others had described his handshake as shaking hands with a wet towel, > and the presence of a tremor in his handwriting which was obvious; > indeed, no document exists that gives these explanations. It was > admittedly anecdotal, but it was consistent with the facts I knew, so > I accepted the information and included it in the biographical > portion (with appropriate reference to the interview). Was I wrong? > Absolutely not. You were getting your evidence from someone who actually knew your subject. We're discussing someone in the 20th century making an assertion about events in the 17th century without citing any 17th century (or 18th or 19th century) evidence. -- Remove NOSPAM to email Also remove .invalid www.daviddfriedman.com |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Croissant-- history of
David Friedman > wrote in
: > In article >, > Michel Boucher > wrote: > >> David Friedman > wrote in >> : > >> > I don't know that it is wrong. I believe the evidence that it >> > is right is very weak--which was my point. > >> I never suggested otherwise. > >>>> Satisfied? > > When you post a quote from a source of information and end your > post with "satisfied," I think it reasonable to interpret that as > implying that you think the information is convincing--that you > expect the person you are responding to to be satisfied. Since I > regarded the source as highly unreliable, I responded accordingly. You're assuming that I was supporting the story. That's a big leap of faith for such a doubting Thomas as yourself :-) I made no claims as to the veracity of story, if you read my post, and no such conclusion could be arrived at from what I wrote, even the question at the end. Basically I was saying: God enough for you or do you want more? As far I know, there was no reply from the original poster. >> When I was doing the biography of my thesis subject (a priest who >> lived between 1850 and 1930) I interviewed his great niece who >> had actually known him. > > You were getting your evidence from someone who actually knew your > subject. We're discussing someone in the 20th century making an > assertion about events in the 17th century without citing any 17th > century (or 18th or 19th century) evidence. Ok, you're saying that the memory of one 96 year old woman is more reliable than the passed down knowledge of twenty-six bakers in Paris (or something to that effect). I am assuming the Gottschalk story is based on some oral telling. Of course, it's entirely possible he made it up, but unless we find a Piltdown-like deathbed confession we can reasonably assume it was transmitted to him by another individual. Unless you know that Gottschalk came by the story through invention rather than retelling, you can doubt but you can't affirm, not even affirm doubt :-) -- "I'm the master of low expectations." GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Croissant-- history of
> As far I know, there was no reply from the original
>poster. I believe I was the original poster, and in a polite way, I said you post was filled with fakelore, so I guess that that means I wasn't satisfied. > >>> When I was doing the biography of my thesis subject (a priest who >>> lived between 1850 and 1930) I interviewed his great niece who >>> had actually known him. >> Alas, as the author of two book length academic biographies and about ten shorter biographies, I would never trust an oral interview with anyone without collaboration. Sorry to report that everyone dissembles in interviews. Sometimes it's intention; most of the time it's just that they forgotten and simply want to help you out by giving a reasonable answer to your question. Doesn't mean that everything they say is wrong, just that you need verification. I can think of several alternative explanations for why your interviewee said what she did. I agree that sometimes verification may not be possible; then you have to use your best judgement guided by your knowledge of the person you are writing about, but then I always qualify what I say and report where I acquired the evidence. I guess we just have different standards for evidence. Andy Smith |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| FS: A HISTORY OF THE WORLD in 6 GLASSES History About the GreatBeverages incl. TEA by TOM STANDAGE 29%off | Tea | |||
| The Croissant Experiment | General Cooking | |||
| german croissant | General Cooking | |||
| Cheese croissant | General Cooking | |||
| croissant | Baking | |||
Linear Mode
