Regency Dining according to Elizabeth Hammond

I am doing research from the most fascinating book--Modern Domestic Cookery by Elizabeth Hammond, published in 1819. Its full title is "Modern Domestic Cookery, and Useful Receipt Book, containing the most approved directions for purchasing, preserving and cooking meat, fish, poultry, game, etc. in all their varieties; trussing and carving; preparing soups, gravies, sauces, made dishes, potting, pickling, etc. with all the branches of Pasty and Confectionary; a complete Family Physician; instruction to servants, for the best methods of performing their various duties; the art of making British Wines, brewing, baking, etc." This is comprehensive beyond belief.

The book is available from Google Books, free for the download, and I'm going to share from it over the next few months. One of the first things that caught my attention was the discussion of meal courses, for this is quite different from our current style of dining, not least in the quantity of dishes available.

Elizabeth Hammond offers the following observations on presenting the dishes for a course:

"Soup, broth, or fish, should always be set at the head of the table; if none of these, a boiled dish goes to the head; where there is both boiled and roasted.

If but one principal dish, it goes to the head of the table.

If three, the principal one to the head, and the two smallest to stand opposite each other, near the foot.

If four, the biggest to the head, and the next biggest to the foot, and the two smallest dishes on the sides…

If ten dishes, put four down the centre, one at each corner, and one on each side, opposite to the vacancy between the two central dishes; or four down the middle, and three on each side; each opposite to the vacancy of the middle dishes….

Deserts are placed in the same manner;--if you have an ornamental frame for deserts, or a bouquet, or any other ornament, for your dinner-table, invariably place them in the middle of the table."

The book has few illustrations but it does illustrate the best way of laying the table with ten dishes in each course. This of course is completely different from the Victorian service of dish presentation by a servant. In Regency times, the table was laid with all the dishes for the course, then they were 'removed' and the next course was laid out.

In writing further of courses, Mrs. Hammond has a chapter entitled "Articles proper for family dinners in every month". Every dinner has two substantial courses and for each month and course there are several alternatives using food that is in season.

For example:
First Course for January

"Turkey and chine. A brisket of beef stewed and served up in soup, Scotch collops, a brace of carp stewed, savoys, carrots, potatoes, and mince pies."

Second Course for January

"A fillet of veal stuffed and roasted, stewed hare, partridges four in a dish, pig roasted, and apple-pie."

First Course for May

"Neck of veal boiled, mackerel and goose-berry sauce, roasted fowls, and neat's tongue, and a boiled pudding."

Second Course for May

"Roasted leveret, and gravy sauce, turkey poults roasted and bread sauce, young ducks roasted, with gravy sauce; asparagus, tarts, and custards."

First Course for September

"Haunch of venison, with proper sauce; pigeon pie; turbot, with shrimp, lobster, and anchovy sauce; knuckle of veal, with bacon and vegetables, and a marrow pudding."

Second Course for September

"Roasted ducks, with gravy and onion sauce; hot apple pie, roasted partridges, with gravy sauce, garnished with lemon; fried soles, with anchovy and shrimp sauce; lobsters, tarts, etc."

Truly a diet so different from ours as to confirm that the Regency is a far-away place. It's another world, near yet remote, and well-suited to story-telling.

Till next time,
Lesley-Anne

Shopping in the Regency Period

I do wish there was a book about shopping--the retail trade--during the Regency, and in particular, shopping in London in the early 1800s. It would make research so much easier. As far as I can find, there is no definitive work. If you have come across one, please let me know. I'm researching for my 2010 release, The Harmless Deception. The heroine is a lady milliner and I want to have a feel for retailing in the Regency. Some things I have discovered:

'The Picture of London', a guidebook published in 1803, has the following widely cited quote. I think it's worth repeating:
"…two sets of streets running nearly parallel, almost from the Eastern extremity of the town to the Western, forming (with the exception of a very few houses) a line of shops. One. lying to the South, nearer the river, extends from Mile End to Parliament Street, including Whitechapel, Leadenhall Street, Cornhill, Cheapside, St. Paul's Churchyard, Ludgate Street, Fleet Street, the Strand and Charing Cross. The other, to the North, reaches from Shoreditch Church almost to the end of Oxford Street, including Shoreditch, Bishopsgate Street, Threadneedle Street, Cheapside, Newgate Street, Snow-hill, Holborn, Broad Street, St. Giles and Oxford Street. The Southern line, which is the most splendid, is more than three miles in length, and the other about four miles,…"

A great deal of shopping, indeed, and we know so little about it all. The impression I have gained is that the retail trade up until about 1815 was dominated by the independent merchant. They set up shop in the best premises available to their pocketbook and sold their goods. A fascinating exhibit from 2001 at the Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, still has its catalogue online. This is the 'John Johnson Collection Exhibition 2001 A Nation of Shopkeepers - Trade Ephemera from 1654 to the 1860'. There are literally hundreds of trade cards on-line for viewing. They tell us more about retailing during those 200 years than anything else I have found.

The best author I have found specializing in shopping history is Alison Adburgham. Her book 'Shopping in Style' is very useful, though it emphasizes the more accessible Victorian period. She also has 'Shops and Shopping, 1800-1914', which has a valuable chapter titled 'Shopping During the Napoleonic Wars'.

Regency novels lean heavily on the first department store in London, Harding, Howell & Co, for their characters' shopping needs. I did so myself in The Rake's Reflection, only I called it by the name of its location--Schomberg House in Pall Mall. The bazaars also figure large in Regency fiction--the Western Exchange, Soho Bazaar and the Pantheon Bazaar--but it is difficult to pin down their operating dates, so it can be wiser to create a fictional bazaar rather than risk an error. I have seen the Burlington Arcade has been wrongly used; it was late in opening, 1819. In fact, Adburgham gives the date of the Pantheon's re-creation as a bazaar as 1834. I used a nameless, unfashionable, bazaar for a scene in The Beggarmaid, and enjoyed creating it.

Individual well-known shops are fascinating to research and invaluable settings for writers. I'm thinking of the plumassier Botobol, Ackermann's for art, the perfumery of Floris, Hatchard's for books, and Bedford House and Grafton House which Jane Austen patronized. In fact, Jane's letters are a treasure trove of shopping details.

So the study continues. But as shopping and research are both among my favourite things to do, I don't mind a bit!

Til next time,

Lesley-Anne

The Sublime Georgette Heyer

Georgette Heyer started it all for me. In high school, I found one of her books in the library, and I was hooked. For the next ten years I searched out every Georgette Heyer book I could find; it became an obsession. I had to own every title.

I have them all now, at least all the ones I wanted, beginning with The Masqueraders set in 1746 through to Venetia set in 1818 excepting only Cousin Kate. I've half of them in hardcover, the other half in paperback. I'd like to have them all in hardcover, and I pick them up when I see them in used bookstores or used book sales. I got thinking about Heyer's books again the other day, when on Regency@yahoogroups.com they started to talk about Heyer books that they disliked.

That was a surprise to me. You see, I never before thought anyone would/could dislike a Georgette Heyer book. Well, I didn't like her now dated contemporaries, didn't read her mysteries, and didn't care for Cousin Kate, which is basically a Gothic. But I'm talking about the historical romances here--the Georgians and the Regencies. Oh, there are some I like better than others, but none that I dislike. Each and everyone has a character I love, or a situation I like, or a plot line I adore.
The folks on Regency@yahoogroups.com were talking about disliking False Colours. That is one of my favourites. Yes it moves slowly, but the twins, ah the twins, are lovely, and mistaken identity plots always grab me.

Someone didn't like The Tollgate because of the cant. The cant was a necessity given the setting. And for a dependable hero, a feisty heroine in an untenable situation, and a gentle murder mystery it can't be bettered.

I don't know why they didn't like Lady of Quality. For me the hero is strongly reminiscent of the hero of The Black Sheep, but I love The Black Sheep so why wouldn't I like Lady of Quality?

Bath Tangle is a bit problematic. The continuing confrontational attitude of the hero and heroine was cited as a reason for dislike. I can understand that. Yet both characters are so well drawn, and their long-standing relationship so clearly delineated that the passion and the reason for their verbal sparring is obvious. They are strong people, with opinions and attitudes to match.

The Masqueraders was singled out for disapprobation. But the people who didn't like it, admitted to a bias against 'secret identity' or 'identity swap' type plots. They didn't like False Colours either. As I said before, mistaken identity will hook me every time. We all wear masks; Georgette Heyer took the mask to the limit.

Cotillion and Charity Girl are probably my least favourite Heyers. Cotillion I must read again; when I read it first it disappointed me for it had no dashing hero. I'm older and wiser now Charity Girl I found derivative--one of her last books--and apparently written at a low point. But still I would be happy to pen such a work.

Georgette Heyer still enchants readers and is still in print thirty-five years after her death. No author could ask for more.

To explore Ms. Heyer's work further go to:
- Definitive Fan Website

- An Appreciation of Georgette Heyer by Jay Dixon (a very good bio and bibliography)

- The Romantic Novels of Georgette Heyer (an excellent, if occasionally condescending, article)

- A Gallery of Heyer Images

Which is your favourite Heyer? Why?

Till next time,

Lesley-Anne