Napoleon and Nicolas Appert: The invention of canned food
“Although he [Napoleon] continued so far as possible the Revolutionary practice of having armies live off the land, he also did his best to develop an efficient commissariat. A famous part of his supply system was canned food, particularly meat, for the army. Nicholas Appert had started the food-canning industry in 1804, building a factory that employed fifty people. His method prescribed putting the food in glass jars, which were next carefully stoppered, and then cooked in boiling water for lengths of time varying with the type of food. The navy first used the canned food, with great success even on extended cruises. In 1810 the Minister of the Interior awarded Appert 12,000 francs on condition he make his process public.”
— Robert B. Holtman, The Napoleonic Revolution
The inventor of canning, Appert, deposited samples of his invention to the imperial government in 1809, specifically to the Society for the Encouragement of National Industry [Société d'Encouragement pour l'Industrie Nationale].
He published his findings in 1810, titled: Le livre de tous les ménages ou l'art de conserver pendant plusieurs années toutes les substances animales et végétales [English tr: The Art of Preserving All Kinds of Animal and Vegetable Substances For Several Years]. It was “a work published by the order of the French Minister of the Interior, on the report of the Board of Arts and Manufactures”.
For his discovery, the government paid him 12,000 francs and gave him free lodgings and a workshop in the Hospice des Quinze-Vingts. Every prefecture in the French Empire was supplied with a copy of his book, and the prefects were assigned the responsibility of disseminating the information widely. Two more editions were created under the empire, and another in 1831.
His factories were ransacked and destroyed during the invasions of France in 1814 and again in 1815. He was able to rebuild and won several gold medals from the Society for the Encouragement of National Industry and eventually became a member of the Society.
Appert is quoted as saying “I sacrificed everything for humanity, all my life”.
Additional Sources:
English translation of Appert’s 1810 publication
Nicolas Appert inventeur et humaniste, Jean-Paul Barbier, 1994 (Fondation Napoléon)
Collection A. Carême: Le conservateur 1842 (archive.org)
Defining Culinary Authority: The Transformation of Cooking in France, 1650-1830 by Jennifer J. Davis
The Councils of Prud'hommes were a labour council created by Napoleon. As one of Napoleon’s many working class reforms, they were elected councils which solved disputes between workers and their employers.
Historian Robert B. Holtman called them “an early attempt at satisfactory management-labor relations in the new era of industrialization” and said “Through the councils of prud'hommes France became the first modern state to have a court for industry” (The Napoleonic Revolution).
First appearing in Lyon in 1806, conseils de prud'hommes were conceived as industrial justices of the peace that also developed a conciliatory approach while specialising in the regulation of economic activities. Proposals to establish such councils had already been formulated in the context of eighteenth-century conflicts between artisans and guild officials, in order to cope with the issue of subordination in labour relations. The need to establish local institutions to monitor labour relations had also been noted by the Constituent Assembly in 1791. But the creation of conseils de prud'hommes also resulted from powerful struggles led by workers over the revolutionary period. As noted by Guicheteau, it represented the outcome of multiple experiments led by different actors, most notably in Lyon, with the aim of applying revolutionary principles to the field of labour relations.
The councils’ officials were representatives elected from within trade communities—merchants, master-artisans and eventually also workers. Their success was also impressive, and new councils were soon created in other cities, so that by the end of the century they had spread throughout the country. In cities where prud'hommes remained absent, justices of the peace continued to deal with labour conflicts. Though at first also created to deal with commercial matters such as brand and quality control, prud'hommes rapidly narrowed their focus down to labour relations. It is crucial to note that, though they were ruling on individual disputes, their decisions had crucial collective implications.
Prud'hommes pronounced judgements and gave conciliatory advice on every aspect of labour relations, and thus played a pivotal role in the structuring of social relations of production. In doing this, they systematically refused to grant arbitrary powers to employers or to let unfettered market competition determine working conditions. A close analysis of prud'hommes’ decisions conducted by Cottereau clearly and amply confirms this. Whenever they felt that their rights were not respected, workers would appeal to these courts.
Employers were not granted the right to define individual tasks or the organisation of work. Methods of production could only be established by workers alone or jointly with employers, according to local trade usages, but could not simply be imposed from above by employers. Until the last third of the nineteenth century, prud'hommes objected to the establishment of all internal factory or workshop regulations that did not respect customary trade customs. In this, they were often backed up by municipal and regional political authorities.
Bargaining also took place within a framework defined by municipal policies and the decisions of conseils des prud'hommes, establishing minimum wages and tariffs; and whenever the bon droit was infringed upon, discussions, arguments and (sometime violent) conflicts emerged.
The point is not simply that the employers’ powers were importantly circumscribed. Over the first two-thirds of the nineteenth century, such powers, at least in a unilateral form, were nowhere to be found. Prud'hommes and local or regional authorities justified their decisions and interventions by stressing the fact that issues pertaining to labour relations and the organisation of production were ‘public matters’. The separation of ‘economic’ and ‘political’ spheres specific to capitalism, which implies the privatisation of political powers to organise production, and their confinement to an ‘economic’ sphere, simply did not exist in France until the last decades of the nineteenth century, an authentic relationship of reciprocity characterised labour relations and was largely accepted, and sometimes even actively defended, by most employers, as well as by workers. As Cottereau explains, justices de paix and prud'hommes enforced, and helped to define the contours of, a moral economy, and this economy was at times also upheld by collective struggles.
The reason why so many historians have overlooked prud'hommes:
Importantly, these trade communities were also no longer backed by the central state. Sets of customary norms represented a kind of local and semi-clandestine legislation. Consequently, prud'hommes made sure not to over-publicize some of their decisions, as many could have been—and were, in fact, on relatively rare occasions, until the last third of the nineteenth century—recognised as illegal by superior law courts and high state officials and politicians. This partly explains why their crucial regulatory role within the nineteenth-century French economy has been so often ignored by historians.
Thus, for instance, after the central state’s intervention to abolish the tariffs set by Lyon’s municipal government for the silk industry in 1831, and following the popular revolts that ensued that same year and in 1834 (which will be discussed in the next chapter), the city’s prud'hommes continued to administer and to enforce piece rates clandestinely, with the support of the trade community and in direct opposition to the official liberalism.
Source:
Xavier Lafrance, The Making of Capitalism in France — Class Structures, Economic Development, the State and the Formation of the French Working Class, 1750-1914, ch. 3
“This task of consolidation made Napoleon a conservative in France, desirous of keeping the gains of the Revolution, but a revolutionary in ancien-régime areas abroad. […] The reforms which had been instituted in France he carried in his knapsack for every place where he obtained control.”
It’s hard to be objective on a film when it comes from your childhood. I don’t know how fair I can be to a film series that means a lot to me when they reboot the franchise. That said, the little kid inside me just couldn’t resist getting excited for more Ghostbusters no matter the reason.
Ghostbusters keeps the initial premise of the first movie (and second) by performing an Akroydian idea of how to make a movie. Remember how good the original was and just blatantly copy that. Joking aside, if you’ve seen Ghostbusters before then you know how most the film will work, following similar beats throughout the film, and with gratuitous cameos from everyone possible.
The real difference comes from the characters. Erin Gilbert (Kirsten Wiig) is our main lead sharing that position with her best friend Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy), her childhood friend who she recently lost touch with in an attempt to conform with Academia’s high standards. Just before receiving her tenure, making her hard work and ass-kissing worthwhile, a man claims to have seen a ghost and she will need to find her old friend to keep a lid on her embarrassing youth writing a novel about ghosts. From there she meets Holtzman (Kate McKinnon), a crazy engineer who flirts with anything that moves and eventually Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones), a history buff who just wants to connect with other people.
This, for me, is where the movie starts to take off. While there are some very great set pieces that really hammer the feel of Ghostbusters, such as the opening haunting, the movie starts to make sense when we see all the women together. They have a tremendous chemistry, each working off each other, building on their strengths. McCarthy’s character is a little off-brand with what she usually plays, being a more subtle and warm character that she hasn’t really played since her role in Gilmore Girls. The rest of the cast is great, having a complex mix of characterisation that I didn’t really expect from the reboot.
The thing to take away from them is their competency. I don’t mean as actors but as characters. Each is a bright strong woman and the work revels in this. There is no easy jokes in this movie, no quick denigration of who they are, instead focussing the humour and the plot in bolstering women not tearing them down. Some of the jokes do fall a little flat, but the cast has enough comedy chops to have a little leeway in that regard. Mckinnon ,for me, being a constant source of humour with her antics and zany presence.
Is Ghostbusters perfect? No, like I said the jokes can fall a little flat sometimes; the villain is undeveloped and anaemic as a character; Wiig’s Backstory is interesting but never fully fleshed out striking me as a missed opportunity, and the plot can be a little muddled, with the third act being a real cluster of trying to make the next scene more tense, more ridiculous and bigger than what came before but it can’t support the weight of such a build-up.
The worst thing to happen to this movie is Ghostbusters. Relying far too heavily on what had come before instead of enjoying what it is now. With a ridiculous amount of cameos from each living member of the 84 cast (with the exception of Moranis) and a lot of call back jokes to the earlier movies, it strangles the life out of this otherwise fun film. It feels like the studio exerted a lot of pressure to try and keep the old fans happy by going the force awakens route of shoving in as much fan service as they could get away with but it just bloats the movie with unfunny and pace-killing detritus.
That said Ghostbusters is still a very funny movie, utilising its cast and premise to its fullest with a very subtle female empowerment message that feels real. These are strong women and the movie doesn’t see the need to bash the audience over the head with that, instead allowing it to sink in gradually.
As a fan of the original, I am so proud of this movie. Keeping what made the original great and adding to it, bringing in a fresh perspective and making, what I’m sad to say rarely happens, a film with the women being heroes, being as funny and as human as the men, never being sexualised or just being rewards for other characters.
Almost like they are human beings. Gasp, shock, Mass hysteria.
#Gelato #Donut Sandwich Event starts at 4 PM today at Buona Terra. We have a limited number so be sure to come early. #Holtman's #GelatoDonutSandwich #CincyEats #YelpCincy #MyFab5 (at 🍩🍦🍩)
