[Sca-cooks] Where does the "remove" error come from?

[Elise Fleming]

Greetings!  I don't see that the term "remove" in any of the quotes from 
our time period refers to a "course".  I find it odd that, if the term 
"remove" did indeed refer to a "course", that none of the period cookery 
books refer to the dishes served with that term.  As far as I've seen, 
they've all used the term "course" as in 1st course, 2nd course.

I'm thinking that to possibly get a handle on when "remove" came to mean 
"course" as it is currently erroneously done, we need to start with the 
1980s and work backwards, winnowing out any references that refer to one 
dish being replaced by another during a particular course.

While it might be nice to think that C. Anne Wilson was in error in her 
research, that person should work to disprove her statement:  "This is 
indeed 'England's Newest Way': there is even the recently adopted usage 
of the 'remove' (a dish to be succeeded by another)."  ("This" refers to 
the innovation of drawing designs in cookery books showing where to 
place the various dishes of a course.)

The paragraph continues:  "The circle at the head of the first-course 
table is inscribed: 'A pottage, for a remove Westphalia ham and 
chickens'.  The pottage (very soon to be replaced on the diagrammatic 
table-settings by one of the new thinner soups) was served out to 
everyone present, and its large serving-bowl or tureen was then removed. 
  In its place was set the item of meat or fish written in the lower 
half of the circle.  The soup and its 'remove' or replacement marked the 
first step towards a different division of the courses which led 
evenually after the coming of Russian service early in the nineteenth 
century, to the usual sequence of courses at today's formal dinners."

In the paragraph above, note the use of "remove" as both a noun and a 
verb.  There is no argument that the verb was used in period.  The 
quotes that Johnna has so excellently found show that.  The term 
"remove" just isn't used as a noun there.  (Making verbs into nouns, a 
so-common practice today, is an old habit in the English language, it 
seems!)

Some comments on the above:  "England's Newest Way in all sorts of 
Cookery", H. Howard, 3rd edition, 1710.  The reproduction photo in 
Wilson's book (p. 111) shows that the courses are labeled as "First 
Course" and "Second Course".  Oh - the quotes above are from C. Anne 
Wilson's chapter on "Ideal Meals and their Menus" in "The Appetite and 
the Eye" which she edited, published by Edinburgh University Press, 
1991, pages 111-112.

Now, this would probably put the term "remove" (something referring to 
one specific dish in a course) into literature that was set in the 1700s 
and onwards.  My guess would be that some "well meaning" people in 
historical re-creation groups tried to "medievalize" their speech and 
started using "remove" to mean "course", misunderstanding how what it 
actually referred to.  This wouldn't be the first time that inaccurate 
words were used to give a medieval flavor.  If it's old, it must be 
medieval - and a story set in the 1750s is old.  People must have been 
speaking like that since... well, forever!

So... Of course it's 'course'.  Remove 'remove'!

Alys Katharine
-- 
Elise Fleming
alysk at ix.netcom.com