The True History of the Restaurant

The other day I mentioned that I had a few writing projects keeping me busy, thus explaining my slightly shortened "What I'm Eating this Week" posts. I thought I would post a little something on one of them here for perusal, though this one is way on the back burner at the moment.

The traditional story of the restaurant's birth is tempting in its romance. Some time in the late 18th century, we're told, a maverick cook named Boulanger set up an eatery where he served not only restaurant, a refreshing soup of the period, but also a dish of sheeps' feet in white sauce. Enraged, the guild of traiteurs brought suit in the Parlement de Paris, (a sort of hybrid court/legislature) alleging that Boulanger had trespassed into their territory. Sauces, they said, were the province of the traiteurs. After a series of appeals, the guild won, and Boulanger's naescent effort was condemned by the bewigged manifestations of the royal law. The story always concludes, however, by noting that the damage was done. Boulanger, and the restaurant as universal eating destination, were here to stay.

From the first time I heard the story, I knew it stunk. It just didn't sound like something that was likely to have happened in ancien regime France. Sure enough, a quick look into the subject demonstrated that the best historian of the restaurant, Rebecca Spang, had recently concluded that "this account is, to all appearances, largely unfounded . . . [N]o evidence in the judicial, police, or corporate archives substantiates the story of Boulanger's defeat at the hands of litigious caterers". Spang, The Invention of the Restaurant (2000) at 9. Surprisingly, the reason such a silly fable has lasted so long has little to do with French chauvinistic pride at having invented the restaurant. Rather, it seems that the image of overweening guilds crushing the small entrepreneur was a keystone of French Marxist historiography - an example of how the French Revolution brought capitalism (inevitably to be toppled) to the fore. In the face of that kind of motivation, actual evidence apparently had little weight, and dozens of books have repeated the story in one form or another.

The problem this leaves us with, though, is that we haven't actually done very much to show that the episode didn't happen. In the absence of that kind of proof, I suspect that both politically motivated historians and food romantics will continue repeating this nonsense for a long time to come. Since I don't want that to happen, my idea is to use a lawyer's perspective to get a little better handle on the subject. Specifically, I'm interested to discover if the "decision" as it comes down to us was even in the jurisdictional or legal purview of the Parlement de Paris at all. If, as I suspect, this just isn't the kind of thing the Parlement was likely to have decided, then I think we've got ourselves a pretty persuasive case that the whole thing never happened. Of course, my biggest obstacle is that though I know something about the Parlement de Paris, and I know something about law, I don't know anything about the former's use of the latter. It may well be, in the end, that the Boulanger story is plausible but still almost certainly false. But it's certainly worth a look, especially since, as people note in another context, the trying is a lot of fun.