Javascript must be enabled to continue!
La Chapelle and Massialot
View through CrossRef
A number of important new cookery books appeared in France in the latter part of the 17th century. And a further cloudburst of new works rained down in the middle years of the 18th century. But from about 1695 until 1740 or so there was a curious lull. With only minor exceptions, all the new cookery books of this period were the work of two men, François Massialot and Vincent La Chapelle.
Massialot had in fact produced the first version of his book, which was originally called Le Cuisinier roial et bourgeois, in 1691 and it was reprinted on at least four occasions during the following fifteen years. But in 1712 he produced a changed and enlarged version called Le nouveau Cuisinier Royal et Bourgeois and this was again enlarged in 1730 and later. The enlargements were sufficiently considerable to warrant describing the later versions as new writing.
La Chapelle first published his work The Modern Cook (in English) in 1733. In 1735 he published both a French version (Le Cuisinier Moderne) and a reprint of the English version. A second French edition, with a new volume added, came out in 1742.
Thus these two writers dominated the field for some time; and they did so in sharp rivalry. Massialot accused LaChapelle of plagiarising him unscrupulously. La Chapelle rejected the charge outright and held up some of Massialot's recipes to ridicule. He invited anyone to compare the two rival works and stated his conviction that the result could only be a complete vindication of his own position.
One might have expected Massialot to take up the challenge. But he did not. It seems likely that he died or had died (the year of his death seems not to have been established with certainty) at the relevant time. And there is no sign, so far as we know, that the gage flung down by La Chapelle in 1742 has been taken up until now, 237 years later.
Philip and Mary Hyman, Americans who live in Paris and who have for years been studying the history of French cookery and French cookery writing, have, at long last, carried out the methodical comparison needed to establish the truth. We are glad to present here the rather startling results; and we hope that they will follow up this investigation by attempting, next year, a considered assessment of La Chapelle's work and of his reputation as an innovator in the history of French cooking.
Title: La Chapelle and Massialot
Description:
A number of important new cookery books appeared in France in the latter part of the 17th century.
And a further cloudburst of new works rained down in the middle years of the 18th century.
But from about 1695 until 1740 or so there was a curious lull.
With only minor exceptions, all the new cookery books of this period were the work of two men, François Massialot and Vincent La Chapelle.
Massialot had in fact produced the first version of his book, which was originally called Le Cuisinier roial et bourgeois, in 1691 and it was reprinted on at least four occasions during the following fifteen years.
But in 1712 he produced a changed and enlarged version called Le nouveau Cuisinier Royal et Bourgeois and this was again enlarged in 1730 and later.
The enlargements were sufficiently considerable to warrant describing the later versions as new writing.
La Chapelle first published his work The Modern Cook (in English) in 1733.
In 1735 he published both a French version (Le Cuisinier Moderne) and a reprint of the English version.
A second French edition, with a new volume added, came out in 1742.
Thus these two writers dominated the field for some time; and they did so in sharp rivalry.
Massialot accused LaChapelle of plagiarising him unscrupulously.
La Chapelle rejected the charge outright and held up some of Massialot's recipes to ridicule.
He invited anyone to compare the two rival works and stated his conviction that the result could only be a complete vindication of his own position.
One might have expected Massialot to take up the challenge.
But he did not.
It seems likely that he died or had died (the year of his death seems not to have been established with certainty) at the relevant time.
And there is no sign, so far as we know, that the gage flung down by La Chapelle in 1742 has been taken up until now, 237 years later.
Philip and Mary Hyman, Americans who live in Paris and who have for years been studying the history of French cookery and French cookery writing, have, at long last, carried out the methodical comparison needed to establish the truth.
We are glad to present here the rather startling results; and we hope that they will follow up this investigation by attempting, next year, a considered assessment of La Chapelle's work and of his reputation as an innovator in the history of French cooking.
.
Related Results
Vincent La Chapelle
Vincent La Chapelle
In their article in PPC 2, Philip and Mary Hyman showed that Vincent La Chapelle, despite his denials, had borrowed numerous recipes from the earlier French writer, Massialot. Deta...
Fouilles de sauvetage 1982-1983 à Surieu (Isère)
Fouilles de sauvetage 1982-1983 à Surieu (Isère)
St-Romain de Surieu, la chapelle de Surieu, Surieu... Un prieuré roman et l'installation d'un moulin dans la vallée au XIIIe siècle, une nouvelle paroisse créée de la fin de l'époq...
Super flumina Babilonis
Super flumina Babilonis
Charles-Hubert Gervais (1671–1744), highly regarded in his time, was the only composer of the ancien régime who worked as intendant of music for Philippe II of Orléans and as sous-...
Impact of intensive prone position therapy on outcomes in intubated patients with ARDS related to COVID-19
Impact of intensive prone position therapy on outcomes in intubated patients with ARDS related to COVID-19
Abstract
Background
Previous retrospective research has shown that maintaining prone positioning (PP) for an average of 40 h is associated with an i...
Predicting 90-day survival of patients with COVID-19: Survival of Severely Ill COVID (SOSIC) scores
Predicting 90-day survival of patients with COVID-19: Survival of Severely Ill COVID (SOSIC) scores
Abstract
Background
Predicting outcomes of critically ill intensive care unit (ICU) patients with coronavirus-19 disease (COVID-19) is a major chall...
Benefits and risks of noninvasive oxygenation strategy in COVID-19: a multicenter, prospective cohort study (COVID-ICU) in 137 hospitals
Benefits and risks of noninvasive oxygenation strategy in COVID-19: a multicenter, prospective cohort study (COVID-ICU) in 137 hospitals
Abstract
Rational
To evaluate the respective impact of standard oxygen, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) on oxygenat...
Characteristics and prognosis of bloodstream infection in patients with COVID-19 admitted in the ICU: an ancillary study of the COVID-ICU study
Characteristics and prognosis of bloodstream infection in patients with COVID-19 admitted in the ICU: an ancillary study of the COVID-ICU study
Abstract
Background
Patients infected with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV 2) and requiring intensive care unit (ICU) ...
Ventilator-associated pneumonia related to extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producing Enterobacterales during severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection: risk factors and prognosis
Ventilator-associated pneumonia related to extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producing Enterobacterales during severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection: risk factors and prognosis
Abstract
Background
Patients infected with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV 2) and requiring mechanical ventilation suf...

