# Larousse Gastronomique



## kylew (Aug 14, 2000)

My very awesome girlfriend gave me Larousse Gastronomique for Christmas. I have never seen anything quite like it. It weighs about 20 pounds and seems to have every piece of information about everything culinary known to man. Has anyone else seen this tome?


----------



## athenaeus (Jul 24, 2001)

Kylie!

I saw you mentioned it in another thread. 

In my opinion, there is no book like this.

Rarely have I looked for something that has to do with food, beverages or even the etiquette and I haven't found my answers in there.

You know, somethings will remain classical for ever and very difficult to be replaced even by Internet!!!
Have you read in the introduction the story of this masterpiece?

I read this story several times , as I was waiting for something to be baked in my oven.

BTW I have a mania with any kind of dictionnary, this is by far my favourite. Ok, after Liddel-Scott.



PS That's why I find the attempts of Alain's something of the world to immitate this work, let's say sympatique but useless.


----------



## kokopuffs (Aug 4, 2000)

I won't dare venture that it's the ultimate culinary reference text but it offered obscure information which couldn't be found easily elsewhere.


----------



## kylew (Aug 14, 2000)

I just got it last night. I haven't had a chance to spend any time with it. I am going to go home from work tonight, fire up a pot of coffee and lose my self in it. I can't wait!


----------



## athenaeus (Jul 24, 2001)

For a DICTIONNARY is the best by far.


----------



## cape chef (Jul 31, 2000)

This book should be in the homes and kitchens of anyone who is serious about culinary arts.

This is one of the "kitchen bibles"
cc


----------



## isa (Apr 4, 2000)

I've had my copy for a few years. I wouldn't part with it. Just about everything is in this great book. Not only in terms of definitions and recipes but also historic references. It's usually by my side in case I need it. 


I am really happy for you Kyle, I am sure you will love it! Only problem you may have with this great book is to put it aside.


----------



## bouland (May 18, 2001)

With the Larousse Gastronomic it is important also state which edition you have. Most of the English language versions available are variations of the Prosper Montagne edition that was originally published in 1938, and revised periodically to give it a modern look.

In 2000, a new "millenium" edition was released. This edition is a totally new book prepared under the eyes of a committee headed by Joel Robuchon. To my knowledge, this edition has not been translated into English, yet. It is available in French as a single hard-back book or in paper in multiple volumes. At well over 1200 pages and with a shipping weight of 10.5 kilos, this book has a lot to offer. Based on the description on Amazon of the English language version, it doesn't sound like the that version is the same as the French one.


----------



## kylew (Aug 14, 2000)

This book has 1350 pages in a single hardbound volume and weighs 7.5 pounds. It is a 2001 translastion of the 2000 French work prepared under M. Robuchon's watchful eye and publshed by Clakson Potter Publishing which is a Random House imprint. It looks to be the real deal.


----------



## athenaeus (Jul 24, 2001)

Yes you have the latest edition. I have read that it is translated in English.
This must be an expensive book.

What do you think until now?


----------



## bouland (May 18, 2001)

KyleW: Yep, based on your description, the new version has now been translated into English. Amazon is still showing Prosper Montagne as the editor, but that may be a mistake on their part. The two pictures of the inside of the book seem to match the layout of the French version.

I'm curious, have the recipes been adapted or translated?

[Now if only they'd translate Ali-Bab's *Gastronomie pratique. Etudes culinaires suivies du Traitement de l'obésité des gourmands* into English...]


----------



## kylew (Aug 14, 2000)

I'm not sure if you mean fro "adapted" or "translated" to be mutually exclusive. I know that they have been translated 'cuz there are hundreds of them. Whether they have been altered I cannot say. This is a very cool book!


----------



## bouland (May 18, 2001)

Some cook books originally written in French are simply translated into English. The metric units of measure are maintained, ingredients not generally available here are left in the recipes, and the translator doesn't Americanize the recipe. Unfortunately, most original French sources get Americanized heavily with mistakes introduced when measurements are converted to the English system, ingredients substituted, and the recipe made unrecognizable by the original author. [This even happens in France where the cookbook editiors will change aspects of a recipe that doesn't make sense to them and ruin the recipe. One chef I know had a recipe for a soup made with asparagus juice changed by the editor. The printed recipe said to cook the asparagus before juicing them. The original recipe called for juicing raw asparagus. Anybody who cooked the asparagus and then put them in the juicer would be very disappointed. Another chef I know there was asked by a magazine for a particular salmon recipe. The photographer from the magazine came and took pictures of the process to assemble the dish and the final results. The editor interviewed the chef over the phone. The recipe that was printed didn't even come close to matching the pictures. I guess s**t happens everywhere.]


----------



## kylew (Aug 14, 2000)

The culinary equivalent of losing something in translation  The ingredients are listed in metric and english weights and volume measure. Oven temps are given in centigrade, Farenheit and "Gas"# i.e. 180 C, 350 F, Gas 4. It looks like they have covered most bases. I haven't seen any ingredient that looks too exotic. So far so good


----------



## isa (Apr 4, 2000)

Why didn't I think of that! Next time I'm in the book store, I'll check out the English Larousse see what they replace baker's yeast with in the Belgian Waffle recipe.


I use to have all the info somewhere but lost it in the move.


----------



## kylew (Aug 14, 2000)

In the recipe for Liege Waffles, 15g (1/2 oz., 1 cake) fresh (compressed) yeast or 1 1/2 teaspoons dried yeast  I knew I was going to love this book Want the rest?


----------



## isa (Apr 4, 2000)

Wow thanks Kyle. I don't need the rest, it's all I needed.


Read the few pages on the history of French cuisine, if it hasn't change it's fascinating.

The different sections on manners is too funny. Did you know it was impolite to compliment the host on how good the food taste? 


I bet you can't guess the answer.


----------



## nancya (Apr 30, 2001)

This is so unfair. I haven't finished reading the books I got this fall...and now you have me yearning for another.

_sigh._


----------



## athenaeus (Jul 24, 2001)

I have spent a lot of time with this book and with it's various editions.I have my grandma's French edition of 1938 and a friend gave me some Christmas the English edition of 1977.
So I think I have a good image

Larousse was written by people that knew perfectly well that they were writing the Bible and they were right!!
So very soon this was a French book for an International Career and this is the important.
It hasn't to do with translation. In the mind of people they wrote it , there is only on way to do things : THEIR way.
So, under this perspective it's an international book.They do not care to adapt the recipes or the etiquette.

In Gordon Bleu of Paris I asked the same question to a chef.Why in the English edition they haven't changed the etiquette.
I mean the French protocol is much different than the English from the most important to the minor details.Why they have kept the French protocol in the English edition?
Do you know what he replied?

He lifted his left eyebrow and told me : " Because, ma cherie, there is only one way in the Kitchen. Ours "

I am glad you enjoy this book . I agree with Isa. The most fascinating part is the History of La Cuisine Francaise.
Because whether we like it or not there is only one way in the kitchen : THEIRS



PS Nancy you know my relationship with books but I think that the reason I do not share your excitement with the latest cook books is Larousse Gastronomique. As the Brits say " You see one, you've seen them all ".


----------



## kylew (Aug 14, 2000)

I hate to admit it, but I agree. There is only one way to learn the basics in the kitchen. If you know the basics, you can be creative on your own. I think that's why I'm drawn to "text" books rather than "cook"books.


----------



## bouland (May 18, 2001)

I don't really care if the author is French, Japanese, or American. I want to be able to read how the author prepares a recipe, not what some other person, i.e. editor or translator/adapter, decided the method and ingredients should be. Each reader has the option to modify a recipe as they feel they must, but they should have the closest to the original to start with.

I don't think it is a matter of ettiquette in the case of the *Larousse Gastronomique*. The authors are just presenting the methods that they consider correct. You can change them as you see fit. Of course, you can not blame the source if a recipe doesn't turn out after you change the it.

I occassionally get emails from people who have tried a recipe from my web site saying that it doesn't work. After a few emails back and forth it usually turns out they they have changed one or more critical aspects of the recipe. Of course there was also the time I inadvertently added an extra zero to the number of grams of sugar in a tart crust.

BTW, *LaVerenne Practique* gives the compressed to dry yeast equivalence as 15 grams of compressed equals 1 tablespoon of dry. Some testing may be required.


----------



## athenaeus (Jul 24, 2001)

Bouland, excuse me if I got it wrong but do you suggest that the English edition of Larousse Gastronomique has many problems?


----------



## bouland (May 18, 2001)

Athenaeus: I still haven't had a chance to see teh new one yet to compare it directly to the French-language version. I was just comenting that many translations are really adaptions rather than strict translations. During the adaptation process, sometimes important information is lost or modified. I don't know if this is the case with this particular translation.

It was just curious that the equivalency givien for the compressed to dry yeast differed from another reference source, which itself could be wrong -- I'm looking for another reference at this moment.


----------



## jim berman (Oct 28, 1999)

Any comparison to Ranhoffer's Epicurean ? Ranhoffer was the chef @ Delmonicos and scribed a tome in 1893 that meaures some 1183 pages. Just curious if anybody has measured these 2 side-by-side, based onthe culinary merit. I turn to Epicurean for all my technical questions and information on classics.


----------



## athenaeus (Jul 24, 2001)

Wow!

This is my humble opinion and I am glad you posted that because I will have the opportunity to conclude my opinion about LG

Ranhoffer has his own "audience" that differs completely from the one of Larousse.He was a chef and he didn't play the Pope
In this book what is completely absent is arrogance something that is very present in LG! Maybe because Ranhoffer is an epicurean 

The most important thing.
You can cook the recipes from Ranhoffer. When I need to check something I open Larousse but I rarely use the recipes.On the other hand I never open Renhoffer to check anything althought I am proud that I have this book in my Library.

Now that I read Jim's post maybe I do not find it usefull because I am not a pro!

LG is can be used mostly as an encyclopaedia for someone that cooks at home, at least.
What do YOU think Jim?

Bouland, LG is translated to English word by word.


----------



## isa (Apr 4, 2000)

One question one should ask is when you buy the English version of the Larousse what is it you want to buy? The Larousse people assume, maybe wrongly, you want an English version of it not an adaptation of. What would be the point anyway? They are qualified people who know of French food, gastronomy and its history. They could not be expected to make and British, American and/or Australian version. 




Every book gives a different equivalent for baker's yeast. And some book even give out different teaspoon equivalent of one envelope of active dry yeast. It goes from 2 to 2.5 teaspoons 

I had all of the baker’s yeast equivalent on a sheet of paper in one of book. I had tested it out on some French recipes and it worked. Unfortunately it disappeared along with a few boxes of cookbooks, kitchenware and clothes.


----------



## bouland (May 18, 2001)

I lot of translations are not designed to be equivilent to the original, but a new book of the same name adapted and *marketed* to a new audience. Because of its value as a reference, one hopes that this is not the case with the *Larousse Gastronomique*. It is certainly the case with many recipe books. I wish this wasn't the case, but it often is.


----------



## isa (Apr 4, 2000)

It's a funny thing Bouland. Most French cookbooks are adapted to North America when translated to English when I think of it. Even the Larousse to some point, giving measure in active dry yeast instead of baker's yeast. So I guess I was worng they do make some adaptation at leastfor ingredients.


----------



## bouland (May 18, 2001)

I finally have been able to look at the English-language version of the *Larousse Gastronomique*. My initial impressions are as follows. The translation is credited to a company rather than an individual. The version available in the U.S. is written in British Engish, not American English. I found many passages that are translated literally, so the sentence structure is more French than English. Still, since I'm used to translating from the French, I didn't find the syntax difficult to understand.

They have maintained the metric measurements in their original form, which is a plus for those of us who work in metric. The imperial and English measurements are approximations often with possibly significant error. In one recipe, 200 ml was translated as 3/4 cup, an error of 13%, and 300 ml was translated as 1-1/4 cups, an error of only 2%. Americans have to also remember to ignore the imperial measurements. In the same recipe 300 ml was translated as 1/2 pint -- a correct equivalency for imperial measurements but a 25% error for English units. Additionally, temperatures have been rounded to the nearest 25 degrees Fahrenheit. But, like I previously said, if you work in the original metric units, you shouldn't have any problems.

In the French version, the source of the recipes in the book are generally listed if the recipe is from a modern restaurant in France. These references have been left out of the English-language version.

I do plan to buy this book, but I haven't decided whether to buy it new or wait until I find one used.

BTW, I have not been able to find the recipe for Belguim waffles in the French-language version.


----------



## kimmie (Mar 13, 2001)

I've given my French version long ago to a REAL friend of mine, pending the day I could purchase it in English. I have been thumbing through it at the book store for months now. My first purchase of the new year should be the LAROUSSE GASTRONOMIQUE, English version!


----------



## isa (Apr 4, 2000)

For having been out of your home for so long, you deserve a treat so go for it!  



P.S. Coles has a special of it: 20% off the cover price and Costco sells it for 69$


----------



## jim berman (Oct 28, 1999)

Athenaeus, I agree with you... to some extent. I certainly concur that he directs the production of food rather than the, sometimes, preachy air that can come from Larouse. That said, I have to ask about 
I turn to it for superior technical reference. I am just curious, I guess, as to why you wouldn't use it. From my vantage point, I see LG as sophisticated to a fault. Side-by-side I find Ranhoffer more useful. Not necessarily a better book, but more suited for practical application.
Input???


----------



## athenaeus (Jul 24, 2001)

Yes sir, I do have an input!

Just something I have already mentioned.

I think this is the reason. I do know what to do with Ranhoffer ,I cook at home. You know what I mean.

I have in mind though that this will be my book when I come to the chapter of my life "how to skin your husband" or something similar.


----------



## betelnut (Oct 15, 2006)

my mother gave me the Larousse 40 years ago and I read it cover to cover. I gave it to a close friend years ago and want to get another, so I can do it again. What was the first English translation? Where do you think I could find it?


----------



## cakerookie (Sep 10, 2005)

E-Bay! First English translation was in the sixties I think not sure but you will find it on E-Bay.

Rgds Rook


----------



## phoebe (Jul 3, 2002)

The first French edition was published in 1938. The first edition in English was published in 1961, translated by Nina Froud, Patience Gray, Maud Murdoch, and Barbara Taylor.


----------

