[Sca-cooks] Re: Sca-cooks Digest, Vol 18, Issue 71

[David Friedman]

Cadoc wrote:

>Dunno, I am starting to be of the opinion that unless the group
>hosting the event
>wants a huge mucking feast, then we should make a single remove with dessert.
>
>I was inspired by Elizabeth's smaller feast.  It means two things,
>less of the night
>is taken up by the feast, and you hold your eater's attention with
>fewer dishes that
>you can put more time and effort into, instead of being in a hurry to make two
>or even three removes.

...

>But from working many feasts over the years, I have seen that most people
>lose interest in the feast after the first remove.  The long and short
>of it is that
>a smaller feast allows you to focus your attention on just that remove, and
>dessert (ok, two removes if you count dessert, gotta have dessert!), and it
>should serve to help keep the costs down for the event, so more people are
>able to be on-board and enjoy period based foods.

Master Chiquart (1420), discussing a feast given by his master the 
Duke of Savoy to the Duke of Burgundy, describes two courses (fancy 
dishes, fancyentremets) and then says:

"And if you want to serve a third course I will find enough from 
which to make it, however I advise that that would be extremely long."

So there is some period precedent for that attitude.

Elizabeth/Betty Cook