Argument: Historical sources confirm the unique difference between Champagne and other sparkling wines

Supporting Evidence

  • PROFESSIONAL CHAMPAGNE ORGANISATIONS, “From the creation of the first Champagne house in 1792 to the definition of “Champagne in 1927” ” The small c that Littré gave Champagne was a grammatical precision: no longer a proper noun Champagne had now also become a common noun. It was a sign: that which is known to all tends to become the property of all. The learned etymologist was quite correct in saying that the wine took its name from the region of its birth, but only after having defined the region itself as one without a previous history of wine production. In positivist France the commercial fortunes of champagne had reversed the situation: when it was unknown the wine took its name from its home region, but once famous it was champagne that gave its identity to the place of its birth. In short, the glory of champagne the wine eclipsed a thousand years of the history of Champagne the region. Littré was ambiguous on the issue of the grapes that link the wine to its region. “The wine of the Champagne region”, he wrote, “was more suitable on account of its lightness” to become champagne, which is an acknowledgement of its Champagne roots.But the erudite positivist cuts these roots, so to speak, by placing them between two serious brackets: “Champagne”, he says, “is made primarily with the wine of Champagne”, and continues, “it has been imitated in Burgundy and elsewhere”.This repeated past tense is significant. We are to understand that champagne is a technique that originated in Champagne. ”