[Sca-cooks] Source information for the make-up of removes?

[Ron Carnegie]

Hey

	Just one little disagreement here, and only because it is one of my pet
peeves.  Remove is NOT a Victorianism.  It is standard use throughout the
18th century, before Victoria was even born.  In Eliza Smith's The Compleat
Housewife they are shown on the menu diagrams for instance.  I can get other
documentation if any one really is interested, but wont bother otherwise as
it is still post period.

      The peeve in question?  The referring to anything that is post period
as being Victorian.  They do not deserve blame for everything!   Remove is
used in connection with the "French Service" and is used in England in the
18th century, Victoria is 19th century (though a good amount of it).

   	The rest of it I am in agreement with however.  Remove while NOT
Victorian in creation it is not period either.  Even when it is period it is
not a replacement or a synonym for course.  Typically it is one dish,
usually a soup, which is removed from the table and replaced by something
else. All the other dishes remain on the table, which is part of the method
or the French service.

     	As far as sweets and savories served together, I have no idea if this
is caused by humour theory or not.  What I do know is that many parts of the
world still practice this, regardless of humour theory (Asia for instance)
and it was still the custom in the third quarter of the 18th century, which
is after the decay of humour theory.  Oh it is still referred to poetically
in that period, but as a medical theory it is gone.  Of course the argument
could be made that it is custom left over from the medical reasoning, but
frankly you don't need medical reasoning to justify it.  It doesn't need to
be justified.

	The bigger question is why do WE feel the need to separate sweets and
savories?  We feel the need so strongly that some people (this Viking in
question as example) find it difficult to believe that they would be eaten
together!  In truth the flavors complement each other, it is only custom
that dictates that we save our sweets for dessert.  (That and a tyrannical
method of bribing our children to eat the "healthy" parts of their dinner
before eating the "reward").

    Desserts in the 18th century by the bye, are light things.  More what we
might imagine as snacks though they are often sweet.  Candied and dried
fruits and nuts, calves foot jellies, marzipans, little things like that,
rather than pies, cakes and puddings.

Ranald de Balinhard,


>
> Well, for starters, "It's course, of course- remove removes" as
> Alys K says-
> please read her article on the topic. In short, "remove" is a
> Victorianism,
> referring specificly to a section _within_ a course.
>
>
> http://www.ansteorra.org/mailman/listinfo/sca-cooks