SC - liver recipe

[Angie Malone]

Brangwayna Morgan
Bronwyn said (and I'm taking this out of order):
> A "remove" is different.  In Victorian times, a course might include
several
> dishes, as the main dish does today.  But one set of dishes would go out
> immediately, and when one particular one (often a soup) had been served,
it
> would be"removed", and replaced with, say, a fish dish, which would also
be
> served within the same course.  Often you will see something in  the menu
> that says "tomato aspic, removed with a filet of sea bass".  Other items
in
> that course would include similarly light items such as salad and dainty
> appetizers, but only the soup bowl would be removed and replaced with
another
> dish.
>
> Does that make any sense?  It seems hard to explain in writing...

I understood the explanation the first time, and both it and the modern
'course' are different than what we did and called a "remove", so perhaps
I'm not explaining clearly.

What I said was:
> <<And just for clarification, what *we* called a "remove", a group of
courses
> which went out at the same time, *was* "removed" when the next "remove"
> came out.>>

as clarification, perhaps I should have said it was a set of *dishes*
rather than courses, which went out at the same time.

however, unlike your comparison of the modern "course", which would be:
"an entire set of menu items, say a meat, a soup, a veggie and a starch,
going out together.  Then those items are taken away and  another complete
set sent out, correct?"

what *we* did was a bit different than the modern course.  it was a group
of dishes which went out together and which were removed while another
group of dishes were sent out, but it was not "an entire set of menu items"
in the modern sense of meat, soup, veggie and starch but was rather a group
of complimentary dishes based at least loosely on research into how we
believed the medieval order of food service would commonly have been set.
(recalling that I hadn't reached the level where i was doing a great deal
of primary source research but was going on what I was being taught by more
experienced SCA feastcrats.)

So, having read the article on remove vs. course and all of the information
about the medieval, modern and Victorian usages of the words, I think that
what we were doing was some sort of hybrid which contained  elements of all
three while using the word "remove" because the courses *were* removed and
people felt that described what was being served better than the word
"course" (which was associated with modern usage) and because, as someone
else said, it sounded exotic.

as for feastcrat.  if/when i become active again, i expect that i will use
whatever is common in my local group or what is most prevalent within
Meridies as per the dominant Kingdom custom.  as for past usage, we *were*
all feastcrats... and not only was that what was used *historically* within
our Kingdom in the SCA (which is relevant to the SCA's internal historical
context) but the term was appropos regardless of it's historocity based on
it's etymology.

I remain, in service to Meridies,
Lady Celia des L'archier