Jump to content

Talk:Let them eat cake/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Matt

Just an FYI, this page has the words "i like cake" at the bottom in the bibliography. I think that is vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.57.132 (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

How so? 129.139.1.68 (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Vincent Kelley's Theory regarding this phrase

First I want to point out that while it is CLAIMED in the article that Marie Antoinette was kind and noble and gracious of the peasants, NOTHING is cited to prove such. The one Antoinette quote that is offered to this end, smacks of sociopathology or her recognition that she would promote her OWN cause, by offering kindness to those who are proving themselves kind to her. There's nothing in the phrase to indicate that she was speaking of the whole of the French people, but it seems she was speaking about some particular people who had been particularly kind to her. Calculating psychopaths can be kind for this reason, so that they will enjoy camaraderie with their aids. So, this statement, that she felt she should be nice to the people who were being nice to her, certainly does NOT certify Marie Antoinette as kind hearted or noble. I suspect, that much as the phrase is thrown around today, it was probably thrown around by the clique of it's originator. They probably had a real laugh, suggesting things the peasants could eat, when they ran out of bread as happened under the leadership of every dictatorial monarchy. Here's how I imagine the phrase came to be said by Marie Antoinette is she heard her royal family, her mom and dad and step parents, maybe her grandparents, talking about what had been said in an age past, when the peasants ran out of food and started eying the national leadership as cause. Then, when she found herself in the situation, she used what was in her circle a cliche, that was widely unknown to the rest of the world. She probably didn't think much of saying it, she probably thought it would be received by her audience as cute and figured it would never get around, never become more widely known that she said it AND probably she hadn't really considered how callous it is when people are starving, to make light of it. So, my guess, is that, EXACTLY as the phrase is thrown around today for it being so pithy and the situation so often endured, peasants starving, Marie-Thérèse originated it, the phrase circulated amongst Royalty for 100 years, probably spoken of at dinner parties how pithy was Marie-Thérèse, how callous and witty and devilishly fun (from the sadistic royal perspective). So Marie-Thérèse originates it, Marie Antoinette's family speaks of it, tells the story. Marie Antoinette happens upon the same situation, bread shortage, she rehashes the phrase originated by Marie-Thérèse. Rouseau writing of it, attributing it to a Princess who he had not heard first hand say it, proves that the phrase was circulating in royal and educated circles. He says some earlier royal said it, presumably she said it to other royals and presumably Rouseau similarly heard it spoken by royals. So, obviously, if Marie-Thérèse said it, 100 years before Rouseau wrote it, obviously the phrase was conveyed by some royal story teller, who probably blathered on and on about all the corruption and hi-jinks those callous witty royals do, for love of reliving the old times and as "lessons" to the young royals on how to live. Marie Antoinette saying it, in royal company, would be like her saying, I'm on your side royal friends. It's basically a slightly witty way for Marie Antoinette to say she doesn't care how the peasants get through their hard times, how the royals deal with the peasants through those hard times, callous, is her intent and plan. It was a way of declaring her loyalty and making light of the situation. Many here have claimed that because Rouseau wrote it before Antoinette could possibly have said it, means that Antoinette never said it. That's OBVIOUSLY nonsense. She OBVIOUSLY didn't originate the phrase, credit Marie-Thérèse, but that wouldn't prevent her from spouting cliche as so many nim wits make habit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielvincentkelley (talk • contribs) 19:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

1

Whoever said this, there is a simple and much more plausible explanation of the sentence - one which I saw some years before, but cannot document so have not added it to the text.

Apparently, when grain is milled, the chaff is saved as cattle feed. It is pressed into blocks. The blocks are now called "cake." The explanation I read was that it was not uncommon for starving peasants in France at that period to eat "cake" to assague their hunger, but as humans can't digest cellulose, the main component of "cake," they starved anyway. This interpretation is entirely believable and tends to confirm the reported uncaring nature of the Frech nobility - "If they can't afford human food let them eat cattle food." Not being a French scholar, I don't know if the French word for "cake" (cattle food) is the same as "cake" (pastery.)" It would be nice if someone could document this and add it to the text. --Tbonge (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that makes no sense whatsoever in French, where the word in the quote is actually "brioche". Mezigue (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


This phrase is often misinterpreted as a bad thing. But in reality, what it meant was that the peasant who didn't have bread because of a shortage should buy brioche(a kind of pastry) instead of bread since there was a law that said that bakers had to sell all types of pastry (including bread)at the same price to stop them from making a profit in times of flour shortage.

Can anyone expand upon this law, I can't find it anywhere?--86.134.33.210 (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


The last paragraph about "oven cake" makes no sense at all since "oven cake" is an English term and the phrase is of French origin and there is no such thing as "gateau de four"(literal translation of "oven cake") in French.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Glucap (talk • contribs) 17:33, 13 August 2007

Queens Song "Killer Queen" contains the line "Let Them Eat Cake, she said, just like Marie Antoinette" (i didn't know what that meant, so i looked up the quote on Wikipedia (-: ) I don't know if there are more references, but i thought it might be worth mentioning.

Any proof or reason why you believe Marie did not say this?

The article states that this phrase was not actually said by Marie Antoinette, is this fact? are you sure she did not say this, I have read that it is actually not known where this phrase comes from and could be by either but it is not known exactly who said it. I'm not trying to say she did or didn't, I just want to make sure we aren't simply assuming things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.52.203.217 (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Many, MANY quotes attributed to X person in History are misquoted. It is very plausible that it was propaganda-created or something like this. Although, it would also be her style to say something like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.114.36 (talk) 12:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the concern over the article. People often didn't "invent" a phrase, but they can make a phrase already known or uttered famous. If she said it, then she gets the notoriety for bringing it out and using it, particularly in a time of crisis. WP is not supposed to be a scholarly POV. Words such as "It seems implausible" indicate a pov. I have reduced the article to just the facts. if someone wants to expand it without a POV, that would be helpful. Journalist1983 (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Episode mentioning

Currently, the last line of the article mentions that the phrase is also the title of an episode of some show. I really don't think this is worthy of mention inside the article. However, if other users disagree, then ALL references to the phrase should be documented. Off of the top of my head, I know that a fifth season episode of House and a first season episode of Arrested Development are both named after the phrase as well. I'm sure there are other references outside of television as well. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Proof that Marie-Therese said it?

"[Let them eat cake] was said 100 years before her by Marie-Therese, the wife of Louis XIV." is a very definite statement. I'm missing a reference that definitely says that she did say that - is it in a biography somewhere? The reference linked to (which is another Wikipedia page by the way - is that allowed, shouldn't references be independant, external?) says the following: "It is believed that she was the queen who originally said" and "it has been speculated that he was actually referring to Maria Theresa of Spain, the wife of Louis XIV, or various other aristocrats." NOT as definite as stated here, but clearly speculations. The earliest printed evidence as far as I can see is 1782, so all that is known is that it was uttered before that - anything else can only be speculation unless some other documented evidence can be given.

By the way, the Rousseau mention says he wrote it in 1767, which is right, he initially wrote that book 1766-1767; but he continued writing until 1769 and it might be worth mentioning that it wasn't actually printed until 1782, four years after his death. So in theory, it could have been a later edit to the manuscript all the way up to 1778. He would read from the books at taverns and such, which means he kept them alive and certainly might have added that one sentence after Marie-Antionette moved in (I should point out that I don't believe she said it either, but I want to make the possibility clear)

The reason I write this is because I saw a different explanation in a documentary. Anyone else see that? It claimed it was Marie-Antoinette's mother that wrote it in a letter when she was young, long before Marie-Antoinette married Louis XVI (in fact if I remember the documentary correctly it was before she was even born). One reason that I don't believe it was Marie-Antoinette and which is perhaps more persuasive than the fact it was first (maybe) written 1767, is that the sentence clearly says Princess. The myth says it was Queen Marie-Antoinette that said it, so clearly it falls apart. Marie-Antoinette was never a Princess, she was an Arch Duchess of Austria before she married Louis XVI and became Queen by marriage. Her mother however, was technically a Princess as she was the daughter of Emperor Charles VI. Her official title was Arch Duchess too though, due to the succession rules at the time. But the difference is that Marie-Antionette's father, although officially Emperor, was not so by blood, but by marriage. Her mother's claim is by blood, from a long line of male Emperors. Anyway, her mother's name is also Maria Theresa - could it all be a case of name confusion; Maria Theresa of Spain as opposed to Maria Theresa of Austria? --Dbjorck (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"[Let them eat cake] was said 100 years before her by Marie-Therese, the wife of Louis XIV." Jean-Jacques Rousseau did not write that Marie-Thérèse said it, he wrote: "une grande princesse" without naming anyone. Now, someone (who? when?) has interpreted the grande princesse to be Marie-Thérèse, wife of L.XIV. Rousseau was a philosophe, a writer with an immense imagination & freedom of pen, not a historian, and he could have said, written & published anything, which did not mean that it was true. In a twist of History, the sentence is being interpreted ad vitam aeternam as being said by Marie Antoinette. That's the way with libelles & rumours, the same type of rumours that run wild in cheap magazines with articles on Hollywood stars and anyone out of the common. What some types of rumours accomplish is character assassination, and what's horrific about them is that once thrown, they stick to someone like honey in hair, and nothing can be done about it. Queen Marie Antoinette was accused, judged & executed because of rumours.
P.S. As for the term prince & princesse, in Ancien Régime France, beside using it in its real sense to designate the Prince de Condé, for instance, it was used to designate high ranking royal personages as a whole, i.e. the members of the royal family & related dukes & duchesses. The only comparison I can think of is when a speaker addresses an audience & begins with *Ladies and Gentlemen*; this does not mean that the women in the room are *Ladies* as in the title of *Lady* Thatcher, it is simply a polite way of addressing them in a group. Frania W. (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

removed paragraph

The offending paragraph was this:

This popular translation of the French phrase might also imply more offense than was intended. When studying this phrase, one must also understand the economy in France during the late 18th century. The price of bread was fixed by the government. Brioche was one of the types of cakes that had its price pegged to basic bread to prevent bakers from reaping exploitative profits if they refused to sell the otherwise less profitable bread. A contextual transformation of this phrase might be "let them eat (or buy) cake at the same price as bread." In this sense, the phrase "...let them eat cake" (or rather brioche: a form of bread made of flour, butter and eggs) would have been a sensible suggestion during a flour shortage. It would have allowed the poor to enjoy what would otherwise have been unaffordable.[1]

First, the reference. This appears to be not much more than a personal site, run by self-alleged post-graduate, one Gary Martin, who now makes his living writing (that site, ostensibly). I don't see a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy.

Secondly, the last sentence is straight-up copyvio.

Third of all, the relationship between the price of brioche and basic bread is misleading, unsourced, and doesn't make any sense. Gary Martin says "fancy loaves had to be sold at the same price as basic breads" but that begs the question - why would anyone buy basic bread in this case? The article said that the prices were pegged, which makes more sense, but is still just a rephrasing of some gibberish made up by some dude on the internet.

Fourthly, as anyone who has ever contemplated (even in the most abstract form) the concept of a famine can independently verify, "widespread bread shortage" does not mean "...but there's plenty of brioche". It means, there is no bread of any form, because there is no wheat. This whole line of thinking is based on the fallacious assumption that the brioche in question actually existed. EAE (Holla!) 03:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice work getting rid of that. --hippo43 (talk) 04:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The idea is also mentioned here. The idea is apparently not that the famine is due to natural disaster, but due to economic reasons having to do with mismanagement and poor distribution (which may have happened frequently in the ancien régime), or profiteering. Many famines in Africa in fact are said to be due to economic reasons – there is enough food for everyone, it just has to be distributed fairly. Keep in mind that corruption, oligarchy, ineffective bureaucracy and poor organisation are widespread problems in many countries. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Brioche

Introductory sentence to article:

Let them eat cake is the traditional but incorrect translation of the French phrase "qu'ils mangent de la brioche." Brioche is actually a type of egg bread enriched with a large proportion of butter, rather than any type of dessert or confection.

What is a *cake* & why is the translation of *brioche* to *cake* incorrect? Here are the ingredients to make a brioche:

  • flour
  • baking powder
  • milk
  • sugar
  • butter
  • salt
  • egg

If I make a dough that includes the above, won't I be mixing ingredients that are the base for the baking of a *cake*?

In fact, in France, the brioche belongs to the category of pâtisserie called viennoiserie (from Vienna in Austria), which includes brioche, croissant, pain au lait, pain au raisins, chocolatine, chausson aux pommes, etc. and which are eaten at breakfast or for snacks.

My suggestion is that "but incorrect" should be removed from introductory sentence.

Frania W. (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

NO! brioche does not contain baking powder as cakes do but is leavened with yeast, kneaded, and let rise; just like bread; furthermore sugar is optional and when used it is only in small amounts to provide food for the yeasts to consume, not to sweeten as in a cake. it is an egg-bread, not a cake; and since the word brioche has long existed in english it would still be misleading to use "cake" even if it did resemble one. the ingredients you list are alsothose for pancakes, for example, yet i doubt you would translate "gateau" by "pancake" Wran (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Wran, Merci for the leçon de fabrication de pain et de brioche. Since you are correct, both the translator of the quote & myself are incorrect as, whoever the translator was, he/she should have used the word *brioche*, "which has long existed in english". However - aside from this discussion - brioche may be a type of bread, but I can assure you that, in France, the best of brioche is comparable to the finest & delicious *dry* cake, which can be used as base for a dessert, such as *strawberry short cakes*, or as one would treat a savarin, adding fresh fruits, whipped cream & rum. Frania W. (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Rousseau & the brioche quote

I would like to point out two things on the brioche quote from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's book VI, which he wrote in 1736:

1. Bad translation from the original text in French:

Rousseau's original:
« ...je me rappelai le pis-aller d’une grande princesse à qui l’on disait que les paysans n’avaient pas de pain, et qui répondit : Qu’ils mangent de la brioche. J’achetai de la brioche. »

English translation:
"At length I recollected the thoughtless saying of a great princess, who, on being informed that the country people had no bread, replied, "Then let them eat brioche!"
I highlighted thoughtless which has been added in the English version, while the French pis-aller has not been translated.
Definition of pis-aller in French dictionary Petit Robert : solution, moyen à quoi on a recours faute de mieux = solution, means of recourse/resort when nothing better can be found.
A better translation would be:
"I recollected the "proposal" (or "suggestion") of a great princess who was told that peasants had no bread, and who answered: "Let's them eat brioche. I bought brioche."

2. The *grande princesse* is not identified by Rousseau, so no one can say whether, if not by queen Marie Antoinette, the quote was even uttered by queen Marie Thérèse, wife of Louis XIV.

Earlier in February, I wrote:

"[Let them eat cake] was said 100 years before her by Marie-Therese, the wife of Louis XIV." Jean-Jacques Rousseau did not write that Marie-Thérèse said it, he wrote: "une grande princesse" without naming anyone. Now, someone (who? when?) has interpreted the grande princesse to be Marie-Thérèse, wife of L.XIV. Rousseau was a philosophe, a writer with an immense imagination & freedom of pen, not a historian, and he could have said, written & published anything, which did not mean that it was true. In a twist of History, the sentence is being interpreted ad vitam aeternam as being said by Marie Antoinette. That's the way with libelles & rumours, the same type of rumours that run wild in cheap magazines with articles on Hollywood stars and anyone out of the common. What some types of rumours accomplish is character assassination, and what's horrific about them is that once thrown, they stick to someone like honey in hair, and nothing can be done about it. Queen Marie Antoinette was accused, judged & executed because of rumours.
Frania W. (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you to Wran for finding the correct word: worst recourse. Frania W. (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt Marie Therese said it, she could hardly speak French I recently came across this page and was wondering if the quote about Rousseau being "mentally sick" and highlighting the inaccuracies of his work is really necessary. Surely it would suffice to say that he was a philosophe and fiction writer rather than a historian and he could have made it up to illustrate a very real point that many great princesses were unaware of the situation of their poorest subjects. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.2.162 (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that during her life as the wife of Louis XIV Marie-Thérèse did not make much of an effort to learn French; however, she arrived in France in 1660 & died in 1683, that is a 23-year span in which it is doubtful that she would not have learned a single word of French. Would she have talked to her son, Louis, Dauphin of France (1661–1711), only in Spanish???
As far as the quote is concerned, as it first appeared in Rousseau's Confessions with no identification of the *great princess*, why should it be attributed to any princess in general or in particular? Rousseau is not known to have written the truth, he was no historian, and the famous quote could very well be the fruit (or should I say the *brioche*) of his imagination. Enemies of Marie Antoinette later used that quote as libel against her & it worked so well that the words are still attributed to her as proof of her heartlessness. The best that could be done in the 21st century would be to finally stop attributing the infamous *brioche* to poor Marie Antoinette who suffered enough from libelles in her life time & paid for them with her head. Frania W. (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

New section in article: Unsubstantiated Explanation

[Without proof, but just hearsay] At the time that Marie-Antoinette said "qu'ils mangent de la brioche" there was a law in France that said that if the bakeries ran short of bread, then the "peasants" could buy brioche at the same price as bread. Hence, the traditional quote mis-translates brioche as cake, when it is, in fact, a rich type of bread, and Marie-Antoinette was saying, in line with that law, "well, if there isn't any bread, then they can eat brioche (at the same price as bread)."

Is this section necessary?

  1. The article has been created because of the very point that MA never said the phrase attributed to her.
  2. there was a law in France that said... needs to be sourced.
  3. peasants were among the last to starve, not that they did not, but at least they lived in the countryside & had access to more things to eat than the poor & not so poor who lived in cities. So the shortage of flour was more felt in the cities.

Frania W. (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

How about what this quote is supposed to mean

I'm VERY surprised that there is all this stuff in the article about where the quote came from and how the translation is screwy, but there's nothing said on what the actual quote is supposed to be talking about, and what it means in the lexicon. As much as the origin of the quote is fascinating, I came here to see what the quote MEANT!

Any addition to the article about it would be VERY helpful TO it. Darkpower (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Darkpower: Will you pardon me for asking, but : from which planet are you landing ? ? ? Welcome to Earth. And if you cannot find bread in a French bakery, buy brioche, so that you will not have to starve to death. Bon appétit! Frania W. (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I am guessing that Darkpower is asking for a more general meaning for the expression as it is commonly used. I would put it like this: When a person of power is presented with the problems of the "lower classes" he/she replies with a facile solution that may be workable in his/her advantaged circumstances but is, in fact, unworkable, unhelpful, and shows a lack of understanding of the circumstances under which the common people live. Alternatively it is used as a glib tossed-off response to such a presentation about which the speaker feels no concern. 216.36.132.66 (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

French bread law ?

This is dicussed above under section "Unsubstantiated Explanation" and "removed paragraph"

I found this point in the lemma Maria_Theresa_of_Spain and decided to move it into the article here. However I noticed that there is great concern if this point is valid. Maybe someone can look into it and provide good sources and proof for this "bread law".

Anyhow the section that I copied in, needs substancial editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.10.60.85 (talk) 09:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

To 217.10.60.85:
  • Why remove a paragraph from an article because you want to use it somewhere else?
  • If the section you "copied" needs *substancial* editing, why don't you do it?
  • Thanks for noticing "the great concern if this point is valid". The very discussion of the existence of a "bread law" on this page makes your remark of the *obvious* an interesting point.
  • In order to respect chronology in discussion, new section to a talk page should be put after the last section added, i.e. at the bottom of page.

Regards, Frania W. (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I've heard it elsewhere, but http://everything2.com/title/let+them+eat+cake says the the cake involved was the crumbly leftovers at the bottom of the oven. Hackwrench (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Anne of Austria

Didn't Anne of Austria first use the phrase "Let them eat cake" during the Civil War of the Fronde?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

According to "family rumours", it was either Anne of Austria, Louis XIV's mother, or Marie Thérèse, his wife. In a book I have (must find the page) Louis XVIII, while still comte de Provence, mentions the phrase as having been said by one of the two, I believe that he mentioned Marie Thérèse, but kind of in jest. However, from what we know of the two ladies, I would tend to believe that the phrase fitted more the mouth of Anne of Austria, a strong-willed woman who had reasons to be upset during the Fronde, than that of Marie Thérèse, a very quiet woman who could hardly speak French and, beside having been subjected to her husband's incartades, did not lead such bad a life, i.e. never had to face hungry/angry mobs, while Anne had to run for her life on several occasions. Frania W. (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Anne was more the type who would invent a phrase of that sort. And the mob was antagonistic toward Anne, not Marie Thérèse. I read that Anne had said it in one of my bios on Marie Antoinette, but I forget which one. I'll need to check it out.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, let's both check on our respective side and, while in my book the comte de Provence is said to have said Marie Thérèse, I would have more faith in yours with Anne. Frania W. (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I can remember when I was in high school and my teacher said that Marie Antoinette used the phrase. Well, I raised my hand and politely corrected her, saying that the line was in point of fact spoken by Anne of Austria. I can tell you, Frania, she didn't like that one little bit.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I was wrong, Frania. Marie Thérèse was rumoured to have actually said it, not Anne of Austria. Forgive my mistake. I read in Vincent Cronin's biography, Louis and Antoinette, which I bought in 1975 that Marie Thèrèse spoke the words, "Let them eat cake". It's on page 13 of the book. I was certain Anne of Austria said the famous line. Put it down to my faulty memory, sigh......Frania, believe me, my memory used to be excellent!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour Jeanne, How great! - not that you are losing your memory, but that you found the méchante "grande princesse" who supposedly uttered these kind words. Why don't you include your find in the article? Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Translating "brioche" as "cake"

The article said that "brioche" was an incorrect translation of "cake". This is not true. It is certainly true that brioche is a yeast bread (not leavened with beaten egg-whites or baking powder or whatever) and that it is not necessarily sweet, however, it still falls within the broad category of "cake". The Oxford English Dictionary (which I think qualifies as a reliable source), in fact, defines brioche as "A kind of cake made of flour, butter, and eggs". (OED, 2nd edition, 1989). Calling a brioche a cake is arguably old-fashioned, however it is not "incorrect". I have edited the article. --macrakis (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Worst-recourse

"Worst-recourse" is not idiomatic English, it is not a correct translation of "pis-aller", and it is not a usual translation of Rousseau's phrase (the Google Books search ["worst recourse" cake|brioche|antoinette] finds 0 instances). Some better possibilities include: last resort, stopgap (Robert-Collins French-English Dictionary); last resort; a makeshift recourse or expedient; the less or least desirable alternative, course of action (Oxford English Dictionary); last resort (Larousse College Dictionary). I will edit the article to read "last resort" for now, as the most literal translation, though perhaps we can do better. --macrakis (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

pis aller has been as much of a block on our road to perfection as brioche! Frania W. (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"worst-recourse" is perfectly good english and , more importantly it's the most exact translation that anyone has ever found for the meaning of "pis-aller". pis means precisely "worst", not "last", and the word recourse captures the sense of movement in "aller" better than resort. your version is re-writing, not translating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wran (talk • contribs) 16:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Wran (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have brought three reliable sources (Robert-Collins, Larousse, OED) which translate pis-aller as "last resort"; you have brought none. "Worst-recourse" is demonstrably not idiomatic English: a Google Books query "worst+recourse" shows 23 hits, of which only 5 are noun phrases (not separated by commas or periods), and none are hyphenated. Translating idioms from one language to another word-by-word is just incompetent translation -- it would be nonsense to translate "un rendez-vous" as "a render-yourself" or "a bring-yourself" rather than as "a meeting" or "an appointment"; or "je m'en vais" as "I go myself of/from it" rather than "I'm leaving". --macrakis (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"Worst-recourse" is demonstrably idiomatic English; here's a typical example: "Actually that is the worst recourse if you think about it. Constitutional amendments are incredibly difficult to pass. The best recourse, as I believe Scalia suggests, is to place people on the court that are commited to giving the words of the Constitution the meaning they had at the time they were written. We are a representative democracy." [2]. granted, in english the phrase is rarely hyphenated, but the presence or lack of hyphens is largely a mtter of authorial judgment and varies widely; my use of it bring it closer to the french and makes it more intelligible. dictionaries are useful but dangerous oversimplifications and one could easily find millions of renderings made by celebrated translators that aren't in a dictionary. you need to get away from this simple-minded interpreting of "authorities" and look at the actual example: i already explained why last is wrong and worst is correct, but as regards the difference between recourse and resort, though in many contexts they are virtual synonyms, resort ultimately involves the notion of falling back on something, of their being no other way out; that is way we say "last resort". whereas recourse rather involves the notion of going to or towards, of choosing; there is more of a sense of freedom of choice, and this is what pis-aller means. plus, to adopt your criterion, worst recourse is idiomatic english and worst resort is not. Wran (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Wran, your habit of over-literal translation needs to be corrected. Translation is an art not a science. As an art, it is important that over-reliance on literalness when dealing with idiomatic expressions is to be avoided. Macrakis has brought reliable sources to the table and demonstrated that experts in the languages agree that the best translation in English of the idiomatic pis-aller is "last resort". This is preferred over your literal translation that is unsupported by French scholars. "Worst recourse" is not idiomatic English and that translation of pis-aller is not supported by reliable sources. (Taivo (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC))

it is indeed an art; its Macrakis who is trying to make it into a knee-jerk science by simply copying a few authorities, instead of thinking it through artfully and intelligently and open-mindedly. you both keep invioking "idiomatic expression" as if that were some magic totem; pis-aller is a word, not an idiomatic expresssion, and its precise meaning is much more important than creating something that sounds like idiomatic english to you (an entirely subjective reaction, and in both of your cases clearly a narrow-minded nand uninformed one.) "experts" do not "agree that the best translation in English of the idiomatic pis-aller is "last resort"." they have never been asked what the best translation is. expert translators (of which i am one) come up with new , improved translation all the time. mine is clearly vastly superior, as previously explained. Wran (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not upon your own personal original research. Reliable sources state unequivocally that pis-aller is not "worst recourse" as the first, best option. Indeed, my Oxford-Hachete doesn't even mention that as an option. My own Oxford-Hachete French-English dictionary uses "lesser evil". Here we have four reliable sources (macrakis' three and my one) where not a single one of them use "worst recourse". Experts (the writers of these dictionaries) all agree that "worst recourse" is not the first, best translation. I would personally go with Macrakis' three sources over my one and use "last resort". You may be an expert (we don't know your credentials), but your opinion is not a reliable source by Wikipedia policy. I am an expert on another language, but I cannot just write what I know about it here in Wikipedia. I must use reliable sources. I don't know how long you've been editing here in Wikipedia, but original research is not allowed. Things written here must be based on reliable, verifiable sources. And I mention that your personal attacks are inappropriate and must be stopped. Editors are often blocked from editing for personally attacking other editors. (Taivo (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC))

dictionaries are not the only authorities on language use; in fact they are over-simplifications for the unlearned; if you consult translations of literary works you will find that celebrated translators frequently use expressions not found in dictionaries, which are generally the compilations of third-rate minds. you both have consistently refused to address the actual content of my argument as to what pis-aller clearly actually means; try reading what i wrote previously with an open mind instead of relying on simple-minded "authorities". dictionaries simply record common usages the editors have run accross, they don't try to find the best translation for specific instances as good translators do. you're trying to give readers a routine hacknyed phrase instead of bringing them as close to rousseau's actual meaning as is posssible, which is what i've done.Wran (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course dictionaries simplify things, and of course good translations do not mechanically use dictionary definitions. However, everyone here except you has agreed (with support from dictionaries, which are considered a reliable source despite their imperfections) that "...the last resort of a great princess who was told..." is a better translation than "...the worst-recourse of a great princess to whom one said...". Of course if you think everyone else is wrong, you can debate the case here, but please don't edit against consensus before convincing others here of your case.
Also, please try to be WP:CIVIL: your edit summary "there's no consensus;only the poorly argued opinion of you and your friend.try actually thinking Undid revision 346089693 by Macrakis" is insulting and uncalled-for. --macrakis (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

à qui l’on disait

"à qui l’on disait" was translated as "to whom one said", which is word-for-word correct (or if you want a really bad but completely word-for-word translation, it should be "to whom the one said"!), but not idiomatic English, and not a good translation. Constructions with the subject "on" are usually more idiomatically rendered into English as passives, e.g. "On dit que..." "It is said that...". See for example the Robert-Collins dictionary s.v. "on": "souvent traduit par passif" with examples like "on va encore augmenter l'essence" => "petrol is going up again, they are putting up the price of petrol again"; "on demande jeune fille" => "young girl wanted ou required". So I have rendered this as "who was told". --macrakis (talk) 03:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

the idea should be to capture as exactly as possible in intelligible english Rousseau's exact meaning; "to whom one said" is perfectly good english, though old-fashioned, which makes it even more appropriate for something written by 1769. great writers are by no means necessarily practitioners of "idiomatic" usage either; they often go their own way and their distinctiveness and individuality and precision should be respected. furthermore calling attention to difference between french and english ways of expression or to ways that are more common in one language than in the other often serves to illuminate more clearly the differences that exist in thought and conception. it is not for us to judge which differences are meaningful or important or not, but rather to make as complete and as tranparent an access as is possible to the form and content as expressed by the source material. Wran (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Wran, but you are incorrect in your assessment of how to translate idiomatic usage. Idiomatic usage in one language should be translated into idiomatic usage in the target language. Thus, French "On dit" constructions are virtually always to be translated into English as "It is said", not "One says". It is an impersonal construct in French, i.e., the identity of the subject is not identified or identifiable, therefore the correct English idiomatic usage of "It is said" or, more colloquially, "They say" is the best and most correct translation. It is always more important to translate meaningfully than to translate literally when dealing with idiomatic expressions. Too often, a literal translation of an idiomatic expression leads to confusion. The author of the phrase in question was not writing with English translation in mind, but with French idiomatic usage firmly implanted as part of his native competency in French. (Taivo (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC))

you are wrong again in trying to turn what is an art requiring intelligent judgment into a simple science, and one that is ineptly applied to boot; for the expression "It is said" exists in french (as "il est dit") just as it does in english; your translation thus substitutes your personal choice for one that Rousseau has already made. furthermore the fact that the french refers to a "one", that is to an actual, as you say, "subject . . .not identified or identifiable", who said something, is different in meaning from the english "It is said", which is more abstract and tends to indicate a common observation rather than an individual case. in fact both languages use both sorts of constructions in various contexts, but in one were it is clearly a case of an indivdual, and where the author has already freely chosen between the two alternatives, it is criminal to substitute a ready-made, loosely appliciable construction that you are used to, for what the author actually said. there is no possible "confusion" with my version, wheras yours deprives readers with half a brain of the oppourtunity for access to the more personal tone of the french.Wran (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually if you look at a contemporary dictionary of French (not French-English, but just French-French), such as Larousse (my copy is the 1971 edition), you will see a number of synonyms for usage of on, which includes many of the same forms that we use in English, such as quelqu'un ("someone/somebody says..."), les hommes ("people say..."), etc. In other words, all are exact equivalents in idiomatic English of "It is said...", "They say...", "People say...", etc. This is backed up by my Oxford Hachete French-English dictionary at on, where examples include on dit qu'il... "It's said he...", on le dit... "He's said to be...", ...comme on dit "...as they say". None of this is "criminal" or my "personal choice", it's proper and idiomatic English translation. This is based on reliable sources (Larousse 1971, Oxford Hachette 1995, etc.). I'll remind you of WP:NPA in your responses. (Taivo (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC))
I believe we've established a consensus here based on reliable sources rather than original research, so let's move on to more substantive issues with the article. (See new section below.)
Wran, I would appreciate it if you would remain civil and not insult your fellow-editors as "inept", "criminal", or lacking in "intelligent judgment". --macrakis (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography

I have added a couple of articles to the bibliography; the Campion-Vincent article in particular goes into much more depth than we have here; and we should eventually use it systematically. For now, I'm just leaving the biblio entry. --macrakis (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Editorializing

The following text has been added to the opening paragraph a couple of times:

Two main points about the original phrase may be (1) that bread and brioche are both made with flour, so if flour is in short supply then both bread and brioche will be, and (2) that brioche is more of a luxury (more expensive) than bread. Therefore the phrase may be either crass or ironic. If brioche is translated as "cake" the sublety and humour are lost, since eating brioche was (and still is) a common alternative to bread in many situations, wheras cake is not.

This is phrased more like a Talk page discussion than an encyclopedia article. The bit about the "sublety and humour" is just editorializing about the word "cake" vs. "brioche" in the translation. Can we please resolve issues like this in the Talk page rather than the article? --macrakis (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC) 4

For full disclosure: I've come here because I was contacted with a request to comment on my talkpage by Macrakis. I've reviewed the discussions above, and I find myself in full agreement with Taivo and Macrakis on all four accounts discussed here. I have reverted Wran's latest edit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Rousseau and the phrase

The second half of the opening section is an attack on Rousseau and suggests that the story was made from whole cloth. But this disregards both the literary and historical context of his remark. The literary context is just an off-hand remark alluding to an anecdote (there is nothing about this in the text before or after and in particular no political commentary), which he uses to explain why he bought himself a brioche rather than a loaf of bread. There's no reason to resort to quotations about his being a "sick man" to demonstrate that this is not solid historical documentation. As for the historical context, Campion-Vincent and Kawan discuss extensively the history of famines and bread riots, and responses by the rich on the order of "let them eat X". That is, it may well be that Rousseau's passage is the first documentation we have of the precise phrase "qu'ils mangent de la brioche", but the sentiment and the phrase "qu'ils mangent de..." appear to be older and more widespread. We have much to learn from that article. --macrakis (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That attack on Rousseau seems quite out-of-place here. I have never read this article before, so this is my first reading. I reached the Rousseau comment and came to the conclusion that he had made the whole thing up and then wondered why the rest of the article was even here. Then, after reading the article, and finding all the historical information that the statement was attributed to the wife of Louis XIV, etc., the attack on Rousseau seems quite arbitrary and not relevant to the rest of the historical information in the article. Why attack a guy for sometimes making things up when it seems that this is not one of those cases? The attack on Rousseau seems arbitrary and capricious here and does not fit within the context of the article. It should be deleted, IMHO. (Taivo (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC))
I did some cleaning up on that Rousseau comment. It should be mentioned that there are those who think he made the statement up, but it should not be an excuse for a gratuitous attack on him. (Taivo (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC))

the so-called: "all the historical information that the statement was attributed to the wife of Louis XIV, etc." actually appears much later than Rousseau's confessions and is just as made-up as the attribution to marie. the full explanations of Rousseau's bad habits is useful to establish the near-certainty of his creation of the phrase, since it has such a long history of mis-attribution Wran (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

We all agree that the various attributions are apocryphal. Have you you read Campion-Vincent's article? It makes it clear that in fact phrases of the form "qu'ils mangent de..." (shit/hay/etc.) had been around since well before Rousseau. It is possible that Rousseau added the twist of "brioche" to fit into his little anecdote, but whether Rousseau had "bad habits" or not is completely irrelevant; we do not need to impeach Rousseau to accept that his anecdote is not the literal truth about some great princess. --macrakis (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The proper place for an impeachment of Rousseau's inventiveness is at Rousseau, not here. We make the statement that some think he might have made it up with a reference. We don't need a paragraph about Rousseau himself that does not definitively answer the question about this anecdote anyway. It might be invented, but then again, it might be true. (Taivo (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC))

The main problem with this is that "Rousseau does not name the "great princess" and there is speculation that he invented the anecdote, which has no other sources" states there are no other source, but then in the next section, it speaks of two source attributing the statement to someone else! Contradictory much? --58.174.73.169 (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. As I said above, someone needs to edit the article in the light of the Campion-Vincent and Kawan article. --macrakis (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I left the bit about there being speculation, but removed the part about no sources for above reason. --58.174.73.169 (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "Let Them Eat Cake"

In the fall of 2009, my class at Community College in Henderson, Nevada, my English 232 Instructor was talking about the statement "Let Them Eat Cake" of which she also said that of the time this was said, it was also said "Let Them Eat their Babies." We all gasped in class, but the point was to show the arrogance of the rich in that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.161.56 (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Cake is Oven Lining

In Europe at this time the bread ovens were largish domes made of mud and lined inside with simple dough of bread and water and sometimes clay and sand. That inner lining was called "cake". The quotation is supposed to be about the peasants eating that "cake" for food. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.153.80 (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Were They Stupid or Were They Evil #394,254,908

Surely at least one scholar has attributed callousness rather than naiivete to this statement? And/or surmised that Marie was quoting Rousseau? Anarchangel (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"Her Austrian birth and femininity were also a major factor in a country where xenophobia and chauvinism still played major parts in national politics."

Do you mean chauvinism - a type of hyper nationality? or Male chauvinism - hyper male pride? Please clarify and use the correct term, right now there isn't balance in this sentence, and the "femininity" part should be taken out for this to work.

I replaced "her femininity" with "her sex." I'm sure, however, that she wasn't a victim of male chauvinism alone, I'll bet there were many women who felt the same way the men did. Rissa, copy editor (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

There's still one thing I don't understand...

How can they eat cake if the cake is a lie? (obvious Portal reference...) toxicrystal =D 21:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toxicrystal (talk • contribs)

Recent changes to 'brioche'

To prevent an edit war from escalating, I have set this section up on the page. It is in the best interests of everyone to avoid breaking the WP:EW rule. Under the guidance and structure of that rule, I have followed the specific procedures:

1) I have explained the situation and the edits through the 'edit reasons'.
i] All my edits have been in line with relevant information, since understanding the context of brioche is vital in consequently understanding the situation with the attribution to Marie Antoinette.
ii] I have used four, specific sources, and allowed room for some level of ambiguity in the bread (ie; it is not phrased absolutely, and does mention 'varying degrees of heaviness').
iv] It is important for sources to be specific in reference, and cannot just be a 1754 edition cited as Encyclopédie without further clarification. It is highly unlikely that the editor has access to that particular 1754 version of the Encyclopédie, which is the originally released copy.
iii] Conversely, the other user (below) has not provided adequate referencing nor explanations. They have not responded to any attempt at explanation, making blanket statements as replies and as reasons for editing, whilst simultaneously ignoring the rest of the comments made previously.
2) I have contacted the particular editor ('Wran') regarding the issue, but they have not replied.
3) There is reason to suspect that the latest edit by an IP address has been made by the same aforementioned editor, but simply without signing in.

As such, Wikipedia:AN/EW will be the next step if it cannot be resolved naturally. It is better that way, to get a third party, objective view on the scenario. I invite cordial discussion on the subject in this very section, to avoid a step like that having to be taken. Kfodderst (talk) 08:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If you really think it's "relevant and important that brioche is clarified" why don'"t you follow your own advice and actually "Read those first (ie the comments made when changing your edits), then consider the situation properly." My version is more succinct and neutral, and much less irrelevant (and I even included your largely irrelevant and distracting reference to 'the cheaper, less enriched "pain briochéé" ' --a more focused and less dubious version than the speculation you included). You seem attached to David who clearly doesn't know what she's talking about and is only speculating; much of what she says makes no sense: " They were baked without moulds. Looking at Chardin's beautiful paintings of brioches you can see that he has quite clearly defined the notches round the base of his cottage-loaf-shaped confections, which are handsome and tall but not tidy like a moulded cake. So I think that in the eighteenth century, and at the time of that poor, foolish Marie Antoinette is supposed to have said, when told that the people of Paris were rioting for bread, qu'ils mangent de la brioche', the composition of the cake must have been simply that of an enriched bread much like that of our own Bath buns and Sally Lunns, so made at that period without benefit of moulds or tins, although paper bands were sometimes wrapped round them for baking. Certainly it would not be possible to bake today's liquid brioche mixture or crust for a fillet of beef or a large sausage then the brioche mixture is made with fewer eggs and less butter, or it would be impossible to handle."---English Bread and Yeast Cookery, Elizabeth David [Penguin:Middlesex] 1977 (p. 497)

If you look at these painting both the notches she refers to and any bread in this form would have had to be made by a mold; furthermore the golden colour suggests a rich pastry, in fact something quite "far off from a loaf of white bread". Note that she then says "I think": thus what follows is her not very thoughtful speculation; she has no evidence. I make brioche frequently, and ones much richer than today's standard; the dough, though somewhat moist, is not remotely "liquid" and it's quite easy to handle. Davidson, admittedly, and quite possibly the others (they present no evidence) is only copying David, whereas I refer to both original sources and serious contemporary French ones that are much more authoritative than David, et al. As I said: "David has confused brioche with pain brioché (see article brioche for history)"; "and: some old recipes [ie those for the wealthy, as opposed to that of la cuisine bourgeoise] are as rich or richer than many modern ones"

I work almost every day at the bibliothèque nationale and thus have access to anything and everything ever published in French. So my version actually contains more information, more relevantly, more precisely, more concisely, and better sourced than yours; also the other omissions, which you called "unnecessary details", of info that I included, which you made, are completely uncalled for; as they are highly pertinent comments and far more relevant than idle speculations about what the lower classes might have gotten away with calling brioche, when the contexts in both Rousseau and the tales about Marie-Antoinette clearly both have to do with an upper class, wealthy person's version. Also, though what one can buy today in a french supermarket as a cheap "brioche" approximates what David was talking about, in Rousseau's day it was illegal for bakers to make or sell brioche: only licensed pastry shops had that right.

I also "have explained the situation and the edits through the 'edit reasons'. "; only my explanations, which you appear not to have understood, were pointed and relevant. Wran (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Several issues here:
  • Though it could be interesting to know exactly how rich or expensive brioche was in 1765 (to clarify Rousseau's intent), a long discussion of this surely does not belong in the lead.
  • I agree with Wran (with whom I've disagreed on many issues!) that Elizabeth David's reflections on Chardin's paintings are more speculation than analysis.
  • But even David's comments make it clear that brioche is a more deluxe item (with butter and eggs) than plain bread. Remember, this is the 18th century and bread is a critical staple food for the poor.
  • It might be nice to know what the price of brioche was vs. bread in 18th-century Paris, but...
  • In the end, it doesn't matter, because it's clear that Rousseau's point is that the princess is out of touch with the reality of the poor.
Let's not obsess with trivia like the exact recipe or price for brioche. Rousseau's story is part of a long tradition (see the Campion-Vincent article) of critiques of the out-of-touch aristocracy. Let's focus on that. --Macrakis (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
First of all, Wran, I think it's in both our interests to avoid WP:APR, so I'd thank you kindly to remain with that in mind. Now that you have mentioned your ability to access the bibliothèque nationale, it would be best in that scenario to find the page reference for the detail on Diderot's alleged comment, which is not doubted; it simply needs a proper page citation. You also say that your version contained more "information, relevantly [sic], more precisely [sic], more concisely [sic], and better sourced than yours" - yet this unfortunately doesn't hold true for Wikipedia. I'm not sure what the policy is on citing archival documents, but I'm sure they cater for that on Wikipedia; what is certain, though, is that just because the editor knows information, doesn't make it 'well sourced'. May be unfortunate, but it's just the case. And the point that you have missed about brioche is that I never denied that David could be wrong. And if she was, and you can prove it via a reliable source (eg, a published journal article, a book, etc.) then by all means, remove that citation. Yet the key thing is that I have cited three other sources, which back her statement up. You can also look at original recipes from the very early 19th century, for instance, and see the comparisons from those to modern-day viennoiserie brioche. And yes, I have personally seen original recipies from the 18-19th century, and I do note a difference; while you might make brioche, everyday, again, that does not fall in line with WP:V. In any case, that's not the point. A reference should be provided before changes are made - that is the focus. Kfodderst (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Macrakis: I'll edit it and change the structure so that it doesn't appear in the lead. Thanks for pointing that out. But note that the focus is on the 'bread' part (ie, in fact brioche) and so a simple few lines on it doesn't hurt.Kfodderst (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
You don't appear to have read what I said; at least you don't address it: in the article brioche (where they are more appropriate) I cite 4 sources, two original, two modern french scholarly works, all more authoritative than the modern popular english works you cite, which works give no justification for their claims and are at least in one case copying each other. David admits to speculation: "I think". Wran (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
All right, seeing as we are in dispute, I propose that all additional information be removed for the purposes of irrelevance. Thus the introductory paragraph would read as follows:
""Let them eat cake" is the traditional translation of the French phrase "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche", supposedly spoken by "a great princess" upon learning that the peasants had no bread. Since brioche was enriched, as opposed to normal bread, the quote supposedly would reflect the princess's obliviousness to the state of the people."
Brioche would be linked, thus providing the opportunity for readers to contextualise in the appropriate article. Furthermore, please note the removal of 'the nature of a famine' - it does not necessarily have to refer to any famine, and Rousseau only says, "when told that the peasants had no bread", which could simply be of a different reason. And for the record, it would be more appropriate in future to use a modern copy of the Encyclopédie or such types of texts so that other users and readers can have a reference point that is accessible to them; more importantly, too, would be the provision of a page number. Cheers. Kfodderst (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning Marie-Antoinette in lead paragraph

We all agree that Marie-Antoinette did not say this phrase. However, the phrase is best-known in association with her. It seems to me useful to mention this -- and to clearly refute the association -- in the lead paragraph. --Macrakis (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It recently was re-edited by someone and reshuffled in order - so of course, I don't see why not. Thanks for that. Kfodderst (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Rousseau's mention of "a great princess" is secondary to the phrase's notoriety in connection with Marie-Antoinette. The primary interest of the phrase is not that Rousseau mentioned it, but that it is mis-attributed to Marie-Antoinette. See any of the secondary literature. --Macrakis (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm aware, but it's best if I don't do further edits on this unless something is blatantly wrong (something as above might further arise). I think a revocation to an earlier structure, in terms of mentioning her primarily, would help. Kfodderst (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Immediately below the article's title it says " This article is about the phrase commonly misattributed to Marie Antoinette." What more could you possibly want? Alis9 (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

That is a disambiguation note, not part of the text of the article. --Macrakis (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

On pg. 175 of his excellent 1837 The French Revolution: A History, Thomas Carlyle identifies Joseph Foulon as being "Foulon who said the people might eat grass!" The wiki page for Foulon also mentions this, rendering the quote as "If those rascals have no bread, then let them eat hay." Though the Foulon phrase indicates callousness, as opposed to the obliviousness of "Let them eat cake", the similarity struck me as notable, given the common historical context of the two. I have not yet finished the book, so I do not yet know if Carlyle also makes reference to the latter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Cocktosten (talk • contribs) 04:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

During my studies of English Medieval and Renaissance Literature at the University of Michigan, I recall a very similar tale with a different spin. In this version, essentially the benevolent "Queen" learns that the people have fallen upon a shortage of flour with which to bake their bread because the Queen intended to give a large banquet, and had acquired all the flour in the village so that she could impress her guests with a truly regal selection of cakes, expertly prepared by her personal baker, about whom she bragged as the very best. However, when the Queen learned of the hardship the shortage of flour had caused the villagers, she promptly abandoned her party plans, and fed the people the cake her baker had prepared for her regal guests. This act pleased the people greatly, and they loved her for it. I further believe that the context of the tale was that of a village's loyalty to a benevolent Queen, and its need to brace itself against an onslaught of the Queens detractors. I'm way to rusty to give sources, but in a pinch, I would start with Sidney's "The Faerie Queen", and secondarily, I would look to the obligatory Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales". Daveransom (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"stopgap solution" !

This really sticks out like a sore thumb as a poor translation of pis-aller. It almost shouts at readers 'taken straight from a dictionary (or machine translation) by someone terrified of departing from authority'.

After all, stopgap implies a something temporary, to be replaced at a later stage; but here Rousseau was writing about a single event. I would suggest the translation for want of anything better. Norvo (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, the discussion in Talk:Let_them_eat_cake#Worst-recourse converged on "last resort", which is better than "stopgap", but not ideal. That got modified to "last retort" (!) and then in 2/2011, it was changed to "stopgap", which I agree is incorrect. That said, your periphrastic translation sounds better to me than trying to find a noun phrase equivalent for "pis-aller". --Macrakis (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks. I had in fact already read the earlier discussion, but it seemed to be dominated by the unstated view that dictionaries have quasi-scriptural status. The point of a translation is to render the sense of the original faithfully and unobtrusively in the target language. A competent translation should not draw attention to itself, but that is precisly what stopgap does. It draws attention away from what Rousseau actually wrote and has readers - or at least those sensitive to linguistic usage - wondering what went wrong with the translation. Unless there are objections within the next five days, I shall change it along the lines suggested. Norvo (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I am all for good idiomatic, faithful, and unobtrusive translations. But what happens when WP editors disagree (as was happening above)? Wikipedia's policies on No original research and Reliable sources help arbitrate such cases, though I agree that they can veer into pedantry. Can't we find a good modern English translation of Rousseau? Not that that eliminates arguments about which translation to use.... --Macrakis (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
If someone finds a good modern, published translation of that passage (in a translation of Rousseau's Confessions), fine. On the more general point, however, Wikipedia policy on Original Research and Reliable Sources is of very limited use for handling translation: after all, translators treat dictionaries as aids or guides, not as 'reliable sources'. Even a respected bilingual dictionary may not provide a solution that fits in a particular case. Translation is essentially a practical craft (often of a high order), not a scientific or academic activity comparable to the study of botany or history. That said, I note you wrote 'help arbitrate', not 'decide'. If the point is simply: 'Use an acknowledged modern published translation, if available, before attempting a DIY translation', I would not disagree. Norvo (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I think we agree completely. "Help arbitrate" is indeed the crucial phrase. --Macrakis (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite

This article, while otherwise well-written, reads like a magazine article or a college paper and not like an encyclopedia entry. Parts of it need to be rewritten as a series of statements with numbered references and Antonia Fraser shouldn't be mentioned at all except in the references. Rissa, copy editor (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The Spanish Princess

>The attribution also has little credibility. Fraser cites as justification for the alternative attribution to the wife of Louis XIV the memoirs of Louis XVIII.... saying belonged to the Spanish princess who married Louis XIV in the 1660s.

Is the woman mentioned as the "wife of Louis XIV" and the "Spanish princess," Maria Theresa of Spain? And if so, why not mention her by name? That would make this easier to understand. and readers wouldn't have to guess who this mysterious person is. I thought for a moment they were two different women. Also, the marriage was "contracted" in 1660. Rissa, copy editor (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Rousseau's Confessions

>Although only published in 1782, Rousseau's Confessions were finished in 1769

How do you know he didn't edit or rewrite parts of them between 1769-1782? Rissa, copy editor (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Let_them_eat_cake/Archive_1&oldid=679440616"