Theatricality and Performativity 1st ed.

Edition Teemu Paavolainen

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/theatricality-and-performativity-1st-ed-edition-teemu-p
aavolainen/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Friendship and Diversity 1st ed. Edition Carol Vincent

https://ebookmass.com/product/friendship-and-diversity-1st-ed-
edition-carol-vincent/

Beckett and Modernism 1st ed. Edition Olga Beloborodova

https://ebookmass.com/product/beckett-and-modernism-1st-ed-
edition-olga-beloborodova/

Environment and Society 1st ed. Edition Magnus Boström

https://ebookmass.com/product/environment-and-society-1st-ed-
edition-magnus-bostrom/

Sexual Crime and Trauma 1st ed. Edition Helen Swaby

https://ebookmass.com/product/sexual-crime-and-trauma-1st-ed-
edition-helen-swaby/
Nkrumaism and African Nationalism 1st ed. Edition
Matteo Grilli

https://ebookmass.com/product/nkrumaism-and-african-
nationalism-1st-ed-edition-matteo-grilli/

Technology, Institutions and Labor 1st ed. Edition

Fulya Apaydin

https://ebookmass.com/product/technology-institutions-and-
labor-1st-ed-edition-fulya-apaydin/

Sexual Crime and Prevention 1st ed. Edition Rebecca

Lievesley

https://ebookmass.com/product/sexual-crime-and-prevention-1st-ed-
edition-rebecca-lievesley/

Freedom, Indeterminism, and Fallibilism 1st ed. Edition

Danny Frederick

https://ebookmass.com/product/freedom-indeterminism-and-
fallibilism-1st-ed-edition-danny-frederick/

Media, Crime and Racism 1st ed. Edition Monish Bhatia

https://ebookmass.com/product/media-crime-and-racism-1st-ed-
edition-monish-bhatia/
THEATRICALITY
AND
PERFORMATIVITY
WRITINGS ON TEXTURE
FROM PLATO’S CAVE
TO URBAN ACTIVISM

Teemu Paavolainen
 Performance Philosophy

Series Editors
Laura Cull Ó Maoilearca
University of Surrey
Guildford, UK

Alice Lagaay
Hamburg University of Applied Sciences
Hamburg, Germany

Will Daddario
Independent Scholar
Asheville, NC, USA
Performance Philosophy is an interdisciplinary and international field of
thought, creative practice and scholarship. The Performance Philosophy
book series comprises monographs and essay collections addressing the
relationship between performance and philosophy within a broad range of
philosophical traditions and performance practices, including drama, the-
atre, performance arts, dance, art and music. It also includes studies of the
performative aspects of life and, indeed, philosophy itself. As such, the
series addresses the philosophy of performance as well as performance-
as-philosophy and philosophy-as-performance.

Series Advisory Board:

Emmanuel Alloa, Assistant Professor in Philosophy, University of St.
Gallen, Switzerland
Lydia Goehr, Professor of Philosophy, Columbia University, USA
James R. Hamilton, Professor of Philosophy, Kansas State University, USA
Bojana Kunst, Professor of Choreography and Performance, Institute for
Applied Theatre Studies, Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Germany
Nikolaus Müller-Schöll, Professor of Theatre Studies, Goethe University,
Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Martin Puchner, Professor of Drama and of English and Comparative
Literature, Harvard University, USA
Alan Read, Professor of Theatre, King’s College London, UK
Freddie Rokem, Professor (Emeritus) of Theatre Arts, Tel Aviv University,
Israel

http://www.performancephilosophy.org/books/

More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14558
 Teemu Paavolainen

Theatricality and
Performativity
Writings on Texture from Plato’s Cave
to Urban Activism
Teemu Paavolainen
University of Tampere
Tampere, Finland

Performance Philosophy
ISBN 978-3-319-73225-1    ISBN 978-3-319-73226-8 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73226-8

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018931895

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the
­publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to
the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The
publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
­institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: H Lansdown / Alamy Stock Photo

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Acknowledgements

First of all, I wish to thank Victoria Peters, Tomas René, and especially
Vicky Bates, at Palgrave Macmillan, for their interminable kindness in
responding to my minutest inquiries, and their endless patience with my
paranoid attention to detail. The earlier contacts at Palgrave were all a joy
to work with as well. I am much obliged to the Performance Philosophy
network and the series editors for taking on my project, with special thanks
to Alice Lagaay, Freddie Rokem, Will Daddario, Laura Cull Ó Maoilearca,
Theron Schmidt, and an anonymous reviewer, for their insight and inspi-
ration at various stages along the way.
Petri Tervo, Hanna Suutela, and Laura Gröndahl read the whole initial
manuscript; their support and critique have been precious for bringing it
to an end. Esa Kirkkopelto and Hanna Suutela have been instrumental in
keeping my work funded, and Esa especially has also provided me with
some other things to do besides long-term research—these occasional gigs
have been extremely healthy. For earlier versions of some of the material,
I am much obliged to editors Annette Arlander, Laura Cull Ó Maoilearca,
Peter Garratt, and Anneli Saro, and their various peer reviewers (the pub-
lications are listed separately below). For important words of encourage-
ment, big thanks are due to Bill Worthen and Mike Pearson; Larry Bogad,
Timothy Morton, and Tim Ingold.
The earliest strands of the study were woven under the auspices of the
research project DREX, at the Centre for Practice as Research in Theatre,
University of Tampere. I can only admire the stamina of research direc-
tors Mika Lehtinen and currently Riku Roihankorpi, for trusting my
project with the peace and quiet that this line of work (and person)

v
vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

requires, and for keeping the Centre going amid what have been—to
put it mildly—fluctuating times of institutional reshuffling. Kudos to
you, in reference to my project’s tactical code name (Finnish for ‘tex-
ture’ or ‘tissue’).
Since then, aspects of the research have been publicly presented at the
inaugural conferences for the Performance Philosophy and the Cognitive
Futures in the Humanities networks, at the University of Surrey and
Bangor University, respectively (2013); at the annual conferences of the
International Federation for Theatre Research (IFTR) in Barcelona
(2013), Warwick (2014), and Stockholm (2016); at the ASTR/TLA con-
ference of the American Society for Theatre Research in Baltimore (2014);
at CARPA4 in Helsinki (2015); and in a keynote lecture on expanded
scenography that I was kindly invited to give by the Finnish Theatre
Research Society TeaTS, also in Helsinki (2015). I thank all organizers
and participants for these refreshing breaks from sitting alone in my study.
Parts of Threads 1 and 7 have been published in Performance Philosophy
2:2 (2017) and Nordic Theatre Studies 27:2 (2015); fractions of the for-
mer are also found in Thread 6. Thread 3 is an extended version of an
article that first appeared in an online yearbook of the Finnish Theatre
Research Society TeaTS, Näyttämö & tutkimus 6 (2016). Parts of Thread 5
were previously published in the Proceedings for CARPA4: Colloquium on
Artistic Research in Performing Arts (University of the Arts Helsinki,
2015) and in The Cognitive Humanities: Embodied Mind in Literature
and Culture (Palgrave Macmillan 2016). Bits of the latter are also found
in Thread 7. I am grateful to all editors—and Steve Wilmer for NTS—for
granting the permissions to reprint.
Most of the research for this study was conducted during a three-year
postdoctoral post generously granted by the Academy of Finland
(2012–2015). Since it took a while to find an actual range of ‘focus,’ how-
ever, the work would scarcely have been completed were it not for a fur-
ther grant from the Finnish Cultural Foundation (2015–2017). A rare
luxury as it is to be able to concentrate on something so weird for so long,
I remain ever grateful to both establishments, and also for the core infra-
structure provided by the Centre for Practice as Research in Theatre and
its changing institutional frameworks (now the Faculty of Communication
Sciences) at the University of Tampere.
The Tampere University Library has been phenomenal in acquiring the
most obscure volumes I have ventured to suggest—this has been
­enormously appreciated.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
   vii

All figures have been created by various drawing applications on a stan-

dard tablet computer: Grafio by Ten Touch Apps (Figs. 1.1, 4.1, 5.1a,b,d
and 6.1a,b); Concepts by TopHatch (Figs. 1.2 and 2.1); Pen & Ink by
Stepping Stone Software (Figs. 5.1c and 6.1d), and Tayasui Sketches (Fig.
6.1c). The photograph impressionistically redrawn for Fig. 6.1d is cred-
ited as “free … no need to nick!”, on their website (https://loldiers.com/
sotohp/), but Loldiers of Odin are acknowledged anyway.
The last year or so of preparing the preliminary manuscript also saw the
consecutive deaths of an extraordinary league of old men, many of whom
had seemed definitive of the very fabric of the performing arts. Because
this period (late 2015 to late 2016) may just appear as a more generally
transitional one in retrospect, I wish to recognize—in order of exit—
Lemmy Kilmister, David Bowie, Peter Shaffer, Jouko Turkka, Kalle
Holmberg, Edward Albee, Andrzej Wajda, Dario Fo, and Leonard Cohen.
Almost everything else, however, I owe to two special young women.
During this book’s conception, Elsa has grown from one to six years of
age, and is now utterly well performed in the ways of her world, including
a good range of preschool theatrics. Kaisa has a unique understanding for
both my work and the webs of heavy-duty procrastination I keep weaving
besides. We share a language, a humour, a world view, a world. I could not
ask for more.
 Contents

Thread 1 Introduction: Theatrical Metaphors, Textile

Philosophies   1

Thread 2 Emptiness and Excess: The Cave, the Colonnade,

and the Cube  47

Thread 3 Directorial Perspectives: The Image, the Platform,

the Tightrope  91

Thread 4 “Revolving It All”: Weaves of Memory

in Amadeus and Footfalls  129

Thread 5 Smart Homes and Dwelling Machines:

On Function, Ornament, and Cognition  169

Thread 6 Protest in Colour and Concrete: Theatrical

Textures in the Urban Fabric  211

Thread 7 Knots and Loose Ends: Metaphors of Range,

Cycles of Change 253

Index277

ix
 List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Four models of dramaturgy and scenography: Chain and braid
are inspired by Richard Schechner; space and event, by Willmar
Sauter and Tim Ingold 18
Fig. 1.2 Theatricality and performativity as abstraction and absorption:
Tim Ingold’s ‘network’ of connected points and ‘meshwork’ of
interwoven lines, exemplified by the globe (with geographical
coordinates) and the spider’s web 26
Fig. 2.1 Allegories of theatrical unease: (a) Plato’s cave; (b) Bernini’s
colonnade; (c) Borromini’s corridor; (d) Fried’s war of
sensibilities. The black triangles stand for spectators and visitors 53
Fig. 4.1 The character network of Peter Shaffer’s Amadeus135
Fig. 4.2 The warp and weft (vertical/horizontal) of Samuel
Beckett’s Footfalls143
Fig. 5.1 (a) Mrs Frederick’s step-saving method for kitchen efficiency;
(b) networks of choice; (c) Le Corbusier, the Villa Savoye;
(d) Home™ according to Apple 171
Fig. 6.1 The ‘urban fabric’ in (a) Tampere and (b) Wrocław;
(c) The Sisyphers: sculpture by Tomasz Moczek, 2005, on ulica
́
Swidnicka, Wrocław (arrow in b); (d) Loldiers of Odin, 16
January 2016, on Hämeenkatu, Tampere (arrow in a)215

xi
 List of Tables

Table 1.1 The binary fourfold: Normative and creative values of

performativity and theatricality 5
Table 1.2 Stephen C. Pepper’s world hypotheses (1942) and
their ‘root metaphors’ 14
Table 3.1 Image, Platform, and Tightrope models of directorial
theatricality113
Table 5.1 Occupation and inhabitation as modes of dwelling 192
Table 7.1 Glossing texture: A glossary of recurrent themes 257
Table 7.2 The perspectival fourfold: A summary of concepts
and case studies 259

xiii
 THREAD 1

Introduction: Theatrical Metaphors,

Textile Philosophies

In common parlance, ‘theatricality’ usually comes to connote one of two

things.1 On the positive side, it is understood as a specific style of theatrical
production, intimately related to the rise of the modernist theatre director
by the early twentieth century. Ranging from the bodily to the political in
orientation (Vsevolod Meyerhold, Bertolt Brecht), the value of such the-
atricalism has variously been located in the interrelation of different art
forms (Richard Wagner) or in some perceived ‘essence’ of theatre itself
(Georg Fuchs, Nikolai Evreinov, Peter Brook). On the negative side, and
much earlier, theatricality has also been equated with a derived realm of
mere appearance, denying access to some allegedly prior, authentic, or
essential domain of reality—beginning with the eternal world of ideas first
posited by the Greek philosopher Plato. Again, the method of this obstruc-
tion has varied from the grandiosely Baroque—Gianlorenzo Bernini’s
mighty colonnade in St Peter’s Square, Rome is a case in point—to the
patently minimalistic: the canonical example is art critic Michael Fried’s
1967 diatribe against the ‘objecthood’ of ‘literalist’ sculpture, precisely for
its interrelation of different art forms and, worse still, its acknowledge-
ment of its bodily spectators. In modern drama, the theatricality of play-
wrights like Samuel Beckett and Peter Shaffer has tended to be viewed in
these more positive and more negative terms, respectively.

© The Author(s) 2018 1

T. Paavolainen, Theatricality and Performativity, Performance
Philosophy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73226-8_1
2 T. PAAVOLAINEN

Zooming out, the more general category of ‘performativity’ has been

interpreted in equally conflicting ways.2 While its theatrical usage is not
always so distinct from the historical emphases of avant-garde theatrical-
ism—highlighting theatre’s non-literary aspects such as liveness or embodi-
ment—its more conceptual range has been delineated by such diverse
philosophers as J.L. Austin, Jacques Derrida, and Judith Butler. Thus ‘per-
formativity’ is about bringing forth some change in the world or, con-
versely, about maintaining the status quo by means of reiterated naturalized
practices. The latter range may (and will) be related to such normative
‘essences’ as were earlier contrasted with the corrupting influence of theat-
ricality. The former variety extends from a standard subject matter of dra-
matic presentation (agency and creativity, or their lack, e.g. in Shaffer and
Beckett) to an extratheatrical sense of accomplishment: notably techno-
logical effectiveness or the efficacy of political activism. Even in these latter
cases, however, the spectre of theatricality is never that far away. If a lineage
of ‘functional’ performativity is traced in domestic technology and archi-
tecture—from Le Corbusier’s ‘machines for living in’ to the current ideal
of the ‘smart home’—it has been variously both helped and hindered by a
degree of theatrical ornament. While non-violent protest may be even
more effective if performed by clowns, dwarfs, or mere textiles, such agents
also risk its invalidation by sheer antitheatrical suspicion.
This sums up some of the names, concepts, and practices covered in the
set of writings that comprise this book. Beyond their apparent connota-
tions with the performing arts, theatricality and performativity function as
all-embracing metaphors of social existence, often with few ties to theatre
as such. With the concept of ‘performance,’ in Marvin Carlson’s canonical
formulation, “the metaphor of theatricality has moved out of the arts into
almost every aspect of modern attempts to understand our condition and
activities, into every branch of the human sciences.”3 Against this back-
ground, the central assumptions and arguments of this study are encapsu-
lated in two fourfold hypotheses: the ‘binary’ fourfold already implied and
to be elaborated, and the more ‘textural’ or ‘perspectival’ one that the
various writings work to develop in its stead.
Restating the first assumption with reference to some of the key scholars
who have influenced this study, the distinctions of theatricality and perfor-
mativity exceed by far their binary opposition in the wake of performance
art and Performance Studies.4 Indeed, both concepts seem to fluctuate
between conflicting values of novelty and normativity themselves: theatri-
cality, between the essence of an art form and a more evasive cultural
 INTRODUCTION: THEATRICAL METAPHORS, TEXTILE PHILOSOPHIES 3

“value that must be either rejected or embraced,” as Martin Puchner has

argued5; performativity, between effective doing and mere dissimulation.
Briefly, the former field of tension evokes what has come to be known as
the ‘antitheatrical prejudice,’ dating back to the mobilization of ­catharsis
and contamination in Plato and Aristotle’s early dispute over theatrical
mimesis.6 With performativity, the default tensions pertain to skill and
habit, or intention and convention—its theatrical and deconstructive
meanings “spanning the polarities” of what Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick dubs
“the extroversion of the actor … and the introversion of the signifier.”7
Most astutely, Jon McKenzie situates the paradox of performativity
between its “subversive” and “normative valences,” in the heroic extrover-
sion of (turn-of-the-century) Performance Studies and the docile incorpo-
ration of social discipline as theorized by Butler.8
The second assumption—one that I only state here but will elaborate
throughout—is then that certain dramaturgical tendencies can be ascribed
to both concepts that not only validate their distinction, but also relativize
the binaries of the normative and the subversive (performativity), or the
rejected and the embraced (theatricality). To divest them of a certain
taken-for-grantedness, and to avoid the circularity of only defining them
in terms of changing theatre or performance practices, this study theorizes
theatricality and performativity relatively apart from individualistic notions
of ‘acting’ or ‘role-play,’ say, in a language of more heterogeneous ‘tex-
tures’—thus extending a metaphor that is already prevalent in the dis-
course of dramaturgy. Even though the argument only unfolds as a set of
relatively separate writings—or mere ‘threads’ from a much larger the-
matic fabric—the underlying metaphors are general enough to weave
together a range of cases which at first might appear quite distinct.
Specifically, the approach is inspired by Tim Ingold’s ecological anthro-
pology and Stephen C. Pepper’s philosophical pragmatism, the latter from
the 1940s but now largely forgotten. Where Ingold’s ecology of lines
admits to “no insides or outsides,” “trailing loose ends in every direction,”
Pepper’s “contextualistic world” of events admits “no top nor bottom” to
the ever-ramifying strands of their texture and quality.9 Rather than indi-
vidual action or social sanction, both reflect a world of emergence and
becoming, but also warrant diagrammatic representation, as is evident in
the range of figures and tables that accompany this set of writings.
Altogether, I argue that the idioms of theatricality and performativity are
both still capable of doing critical work, if only we shift from models of
binary containment (the ins and outs of ‘what counts’) to a more textured
4 T. PAAVOLAINEN

approach along the lines I shall work to propose (both and rather than
either or). Closer to the nascent tradition of Performance Philosophy, this
is akin to the perspectival continuum that Laura Cull has suggested
between the Deleuzeian tendencies of ‘immanence’ and ‘transcendence,’
even if the two initially seemed to suggest a transcendent opposition
between, say, ‘performativity’ and ‘theatricality.’10
Before such philosophical implications can be unravelled, however, the
tensions and dualities of the first assumption need to be further clarified at
some length. For now, the key to why this book’s titular conceptual dis-
tinction can still be argued to matter is found in the derivations of the
words themselves. Superficially, it would seem that the shared suffix of
theatricality and performativity only identifies them as general qualities of
events or actions, and thus as somehow equivalent—abstracting them
from the specifics of actual theatres and particular performances, while
also implicitly essentializing skill and sensibility, as do similar words like
musicality or humanity. More crucially, the core distinction that their ety-
mologies suggest between seeing and doing (from the Greek theâsthai, ‘to
behold,’ and the Old French parfornir, ‘to do, carry out, finish, accom-
plish’) is casually extended to those of form and function, theory and
practice, fixity and change: rigid semiosis as opposed to effective action,
inner meaning versus outer effect, the what of representation and the how
of reiteration. As Stephen Bottoms notes, even such ‘braided’ binaries as
Richard Schechner’s—of ‘entertainment’ and ‘efficacy’—often come with
gendered overtones of “potent virility versus showy sterility” (he takes
issue with Schechner’s implicitly masculinistic, heteronormative validation
of performative efficacy over theatrical ‘effeminacy’).11
Thus, the most innocent of binaries are invested with ethics and judge-
ments of value, tacitly performative of ideology and ‘world view,’ as I sug-
gest later in this chapter. This is a theme that is followed through in all the
various threads of this study. Even if the two perspectives could well be
considered as constituting the kind of “binocular vision” that Bert States
once suggested of semiotics and phenomenology12—themselves readily
associated with theatricality and performativity, respectively—the ten-
dency is to imbue the ‘derived realm’ of theatricality with the kinds of
negative qualities that Cull attributes to “the two-worlds view of transcen-
dence”: a commitment to dualism (mind and matter, subject and object);
fixed identities; imitation and representation; and a “top-down” approach
to organization and creativity, as if from “‘outside or above’ the physical
world” rather than “dwelling within.”13 What is at stake in this book is a
 INTRODUCTION: THEATRICAL METAPHORS, TEXTILE PHILOSOPHIES 5

restoration of theatricality’s more positive qualities, even if their affective

power might also be used to deceptive and even detrimental ends.
Throughout, this is done by retaining performativity as the domain of
‘immanent’ change and becoming, and indeed admitting theatricality’s
‘transcendent’ tendencies, only reformulated through a set of metaphors
specific to the case studies: the Cave, Colonnade, and Cube of Thread 2
(Plato, Bernini, and Fried); the Image, Platform, and Tightrope of
Thread 3 (e.g. Wagner, Brecht, Brook); the ‘seams’ and ornaments of
Thread 5 (domestic design); the ‘counter-texture’ of colour in Thread 6
(urban activism).
The bulk of this introduction consists in elaborating how metaphor,
dramaturgy, philosophy, and different metaphors of texture intertwine in
my approach; these are the very yarn from which the more ‘perspectival’
argument is woven in the case studies. As a necessary background, how-
ever, I will now elucidate, in some detail, just how my target discourses
appear to fluctuate between values of novelty and normativity, as summar-
ily suggested in the ‘binary fourfold’ of Table 1.1: theatricality, between
creative essence and elusive appearance, performativity, between doing
and dissimulation. From different perspectives, citing Shannon Jackson’s
oft-quoted summary, their contested common ground “is about doing,
and it is about seeing; … it repeats endlessly and it never repeats; it is
intentional and unintentional, innovative and derivative, more fake and
more real”—she calls this common ground ‘performance.’14 While both
theatricality and performativity have been argued to both sustain and dis-
rupt the powers that be, to think about their tensions and paradoxes is to
engage in a performance philosophy.

Table 1.1 The binary fourfold: Normative and creative values of performativity
and theatricality
Performativity Theatricality

NOVELTY
[4] Austin: “doing things”; singular acts: [2] Art form: modernist essences, “rich” or
agency/efficacy; parfornir: to “furnish “poor” (Wagner/Grotowski); literal:
forth”; presence, skill, embodiment “theater-minus-text” (Barthes); expression,
staging, directorial control
NORMATIVITY
[3] Butler: “dissimulation” of historicity, [1] Value/quality, modern epistemology:
reiteration of norms/conventions; per representation, perception, appearance;
formam: “through form”; status quo figural: derived, hollow, parasitic,
sustained by habit/repetition detrimental as “excess or emptiness”
6 T. PAAVOLAINEN

The ensuing discussion proceeds according to the numbering provided

in Table 1.1; to retain a degree of brevity, certain key references are further
opened in the notes. The rest of the introduction is outlined at the end of
the following section, the remainder of the book—apart from the passing
explanatory reference—at the end of this chapter.

Novelty and Normativity: A Hypothetical Fourfold

[1] If only to caricature the more negative and more positive valorizations
of theatricality and performativity in four points, I am inclined to frame
the debate by what Jonas Barish famously dubbed the “antitheatrical prej-
udice”: the “ontological queasiness” so easily evoked by theatricality as a
value, quality, or condition, evident in its “hostile or belittling” connota-
tions in everyday language (playing up to, putting on an act, making a
scene),15 but arguably preceding its specifically ‘theatrical’ denotations. As
noted, the theatre’s very etymology evokes sight and spectatorship (the
theatron as ‘seeing place’); add a Platonic prejudice over ‘mere appear-
ances,’ and theatricality becomes a pejorative term for something derived
from, and perhaps even detrimental to, art and society alike. As Thomas
Postlewait and Tracy C. Davis neatly put it, it seems all but defined by its
“excess and its emptiness, its surplus as well as its lack.”16
Suffice it here to emphasize four implications of this succinct formula-
tion. In its excessive or centrifugal mode, first, the danger of theatricality
is seen to lie in its orientation towards an audience, and hence its ability to
‘parasitize’ the body politic by way of mimetic contagion (the ‘parasitic’
here referencing J.L. Austin’s famous exclusion of theatrical speech acts
from his initial discussion of the performative).17 That this poses a threat,
second, is because theatricality is deemed all appearance (“hollow or void”
for Austin), corruptive of some alleged essence, be it of reality, authentic-
ity, literature, or liveness—its empirical ‘objecthood,’ from Plato’s Cave to
Michael Fried’s modernism, obstructing ideal comprehension and aes-
thetic absorption alike.
Third, variously identified with fascist spectacle and bourgeois deco-
rum, the notion has itself become an ‘empty term,’ readily resisted in any
and all binaries, differently configured in different times and art forms.
As Jackson notes, the ‘literal’ theatrical attacked by Fried is very different
from the ‘figural’ traditionally despised.18
Fourth, even as its metaphorical extension transcends the squarely ‘the-
atrical’ (modifiers like acting or illusion), the value of theatricality remains
contingent on historical practices and shifting moral sentiments. Therefore
 INTRODUCTION: THEATRICAL METAPHORS, TEXTILE PHILOSOPHIES 7

Christopher Balme, for instance, sees in the discourse of ‘authenticity,’ as

it arises in eighteenth-century Europe, a reaction to what was perceived as
the “ubiquitous theatricality of modernity.” Taking a cue from Elizabeth
Burns, he very usefully identifies theatricality more generally as a “mode of
perception” with dramaturgical, aesthetic, and epistemological facets:

Theatricality is a mode of perception that brackets moments of action or

particular places in such a way that they are imbued with extreme concentra-
tion and focus. It invariably emphasizes the visual senses and moves the
beholder to become aware of his/her act of spectating. Because this mode
of perception depends on the recognition of pre-existing patterns and con-
ventions, it is often framed or, pejoratively spoken, marred by a sense of
second-handedness.19

(This set of connotations is specifically addressed in Thread 2 of this

study—through the emblematic Cave, Colonnade, and Cube of Platonic
parable, Baroque architecture, and minimalist sculpture—but also in refer-
ence to Shaffer’s Amadeus in Thread 4.)
[2] By the twentieth century, however, these very qualities would also
define theatricality in the affirmative.20 Newly conscious of its specificity in
the modernist moment—in line with concurrent formalisms of literariness
or pictoriality—the art of theatre now sought to enlist its epistemological
baggage of perception and appearance in an ontology of expressive
essence, on which four points can again be highlighted.
First, as Glen McGillivray argues, theatricality remained a value but now
“operated in reverse,” as a transcendent category “to which various forms
of practice aspired”21—an empty term now specifically emptied of ‘theatre’
as it was currently practised by actors and producers (witness the antithe-
atricality of the newly emerging director). As such, second, it could freely
capitalize on many qualities historically charged against it, the aesthetics of
excess and emptiness, for example, now ranging from the ‘rich’ or Baroque
or Wagnerian to the ‘poor’ bare essentials of a Brecht or a Grotowski.
Here, third and fourth, a distinction also becomes apparent between
what may be called the intro- and extroversive aspects of such liberatory
modernism. With the kind of absorption readily afforded by stage realism
and the emergent cinema, it only made sense to specify theatricality through
its historically despised objecthood—by ‘baring the device’ to its now cor-
poreal essence, in a self-reflexive gesture often driven by a distrust of lan-
guage (cf. Roland Barthes’s ‘theatre-minus-text’22) or some appropriation
of archaic or non-Western performance forms. In their concurrent opening
8 T. PAAVOLAINEN

up to political or even metaphysical realities, finally, the ‘­theatricalists’

aspired not only to ‘retheatricalize’ the theatre, but indeed to theatricalize
life itself as something from which humanity had become utterly alienated
by its inert institutions.
So consistent has this discourse remained with the modernist assump-
tions of the historical avant-garde—stressed by McGillivray and derived, by
Puchner, from Wagner—that quite routinely its key academic proponents
have also aligned theatricality with either the “essence” or “specificity” of
theatre (Josette Féral) or with a “heightened, intensified … celebrative
expression of human potential” (Marvin Carlson).23
(These trajectories may be related to Beckett’s ‘detheatricalization’ of
the theatre in works like Footfalls [Thread 4], but are explicitly explored in
Thread 3, through the threefold metaphors of the Image, the Platform,
and the Tightrope. These are derived from Wagner and Fuchs; Meyerhold
and Brecht; and Peter Brook, respectively.)
[3] Then again, both expression and essence are precisely opposed to
performativity as Judith Butler intends it, as a “reiteration of norms” the
very historicity of which it tacitly “conceals or dissimulates” as the natural
workings of pregiven entities.24 In contrast to the modern/ist discourse of
theatricality, that of performativity is most specifically a postmodern one,
but has also been extended—from Nietzsche’s ‘no doer behind the deed’
to Derridean deconstruction—to define our age more generally (as ‘reason’
did the Enlightenment).25 Again a cluster of connotations suggests itself.
As a category of identity, first, performativity’s opposition to ‘expressive-
ness’ also undercuts theatrical dichotomies of reality and appearance. Instead
of our “doings” (styles, clothes, gestures) merely exteriorizing what we
essentially ‘are,’ for Butler they “effectively constitute the identity they are
said to express or reveal.” Rather than providing ‘roles’ for ‘selves’ to take
on, the performativity of gender she has established “means, quite simply,
that it is real only to the extent that it is performed.”26 As a cultural cate-
gory, second, it thus exceeds the “bounded ‘acts’” of performance in that its
norms “precede, constrain, and exceed the … performer’s ‘will’ or ‘choice.’”
Dissimulated as nature or essence, it also evades the sensory measures of
theatricality and rather affords, as Sedgwick notes, such ‘absorption’ as Fried
proposed in its stead.27 Third, performative accounts of knowledge can be
contrasted with representational ones. Insofar as discourses and institutions
also ‘constitute’ the realities they claim only to describe—objectively, as if
from a theatrical distance—‘performative’ knowledge remains thoroughly
implicated in surrounding matrices of power.28
 INTRODUCTION: THEATRICAL METAPHORS, TEXTILE PHILOSOPHIES 9

Altogether, these notions amount to a theory of normativity.29 While it

can enable a progressive politics by exposing its pervasive dissimulations,
this strand of performativity “names the iterative processes” that in Jackson’s
words “do the ‘institutionalizing’ in institutional racism and … the ‘inter-
nalizing’ in internalized oppression.”30 In a sense, this trajectory begins
already in J.L. Austin’s initial theorization of performative speech acts, in
How to Do Things with Words (1962), challenging the ‘representationalist’
view of language with utterances that in “appropriate circumstances” have
the power to affect reality (e.g. “I do” at a wedding).31 After Jacques Derrida
had challenged Austin’s own normalization of certain circumstances (the
“appropriate” as opposed to the theatrically “hollow or void”) with the
‘iterability’ of all utterances, Butler could formulate the general “paradox of
subjectification”: “that the subject who would resist such norms is itself
enabled, if not produced, by such norms,” any sense of agency thus “imma-
nent to power, and not a relation of external opposition.”32
[4] Such contextual nuances aside, finally, the kind of cultural agency
often cherished in Performance Studies is ultimately more akin to Austin’s
pragmatic vision of performativity as the doing of things, effectively, not
only with words but in the world. Often, this vision of agency comes with
a sense of direct causation, coupled with a subversive politics that seeks to
destabilize both social discipline and the near-obsolete art form of theatre
(this is only conditionally allowed by Butler). Insofar as it tends to merge
with more general notions of either performance as such—as “a doing and
a thing done” (Diamond), boasting an “ontology of presence” (Phelan)—
or with ‘cultural performance’ and its social efficacy (McKenzie),33 two key
contexts of negation stand out for this more discipline-specific derivation
of performativity.
First, the very definition of the field of performance depends on stories of
transgression, ranging from that of performance art—beyond the static
bounds of the traditionally visual arts—to the ‘subversion of theatricality’ in
Performance Studies. Indeed, Jackson sees in the latter’s “heroic” origin
stories of “disciplinary breaking and remaking” a “masculinist … quest to
dissociate from the feminized realm of theatre,” again serving as the empty
term against which it performs its very specificity. (Thus, the ‘essentialist
strain’ of theatre-minus is displaced with an ‘imperialist strain’ of theatre-
plus-all-social-behaviour.)34 Second, once this value of “liminal transgression
or resistance itself becomes normative,” it soon loses sight of modalities of
efficiency and effectiveness that McKenzie recognizes as anything but subver-
sive.35 In Stephen Bottoms’s recap, these include “the coercive ‘performance
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Plate 7.

22
GOOSE.

23
WILD DUCK.

24
TURKEY.

H. Adlard, sc.
 Plate 8.

26
ENTRÉE OF CUTLETS.

25
HARE.

27
FRICANDEAU OF VEAL.
H. Adlard, sc.
MODERN COOKERY.
CHAPTER I.
 Soups.
Ingredients which may all be used for making Soup of various kinds:—
Beef—Mutton—Veal—Hams—Salted Pork—Fat Bacon—Pigs’ Ears and Feet—
Venison—Black and Moor Game—Partridges—Pheasants—Wild Pigeons—
Hares—Rabbits—Turkeys—Fowls—Tame Pigeons—Sturgeon—Conger Eel,
with all sorts of Fish usually eaten—All Shell-Fish—Every kind of Vegetable and
Herb fit for food—Butter—Milk—Eggs—Rice—Sago—Arrow-Root—Indian Corn
—Hominy—Soujee—Tapioca—Pearl Barley—Oatmeal—Polenta[9]—Macaroni
—Vermicelli—Semoulina, and other Italian Pastes.

9. The name given in English commerce to the maize flour or meal of Italy.

The art of preparing good, wholesome, palatable soups, without

great expense, which is so well understood in France, and in other
countries where they form part of the daily food of all classes of the
people, has hitherto been very much neglected in England;[10] yet it
really presents no difficulties which a little practice, and the most
common degree of care, will not readily overcome; and we strongly
recommend increased attention to it, not only on account of the loss
and inconvenience which ignorance of it occasions in many
households, but because a better knowledge of it will lead naturally
to improvement in other branches of cookery connected with it in
which our want of skill is now equally apparent.
10. The inability of servants to prepare delicately and well even a little broth
suited to an invalid, is often painfully evident in cases of illness, not only in
common English life, but where the cookery is supposed to be of a superior
order.

We have endeavoured to show by the list at the beginning of this

chapter the immense number of different articles of which soup may
be in turn compounded. It is almost superfluous to add, that it may
be rendered at pleasure exceedingly rich, or simple in the extreme;
composed, in fact, of all that is most choice in diet, or of little beyond
herbs and vegetables. From the varied produce of a well-stored
kitchen garden, it may be made excellent at a very trifling cost; and
where fish is fresh and abundant it may be cheaply supplied nearly
equal in quality to that for which a full proportion of meat is
commonly used. It is best suited to the colder seasons of the year
when thickened well with rice, semoulina, pearl barley, or other
ingredients of the same nature; and adapted to the summer months
when lighter and more refreshing. Families who have resided much
abroad, and those accustomed to continental modes of service,
prefer it usually in any form to the more solid and heavy dishes
which still often supersede it altogether at our tables[11] (except at
those of the more affluent classes of society, where it appears, as a
matter of course, in the daily bills of fare), and which are so
oppressive, not only to foreigners, but to all persons generally to
whom circumstances have rendered them unaccustomed diet; and
many a housekeeper who is compelled by a narrow income to adopt
a system of rigid domestic economy, would find it assist greatly in
furnishing comfortable meals in a very frugal manner, if the proper
modes of making it were fully comprehended as they ought to be.
[12]
11. The popular taste in England, even at the present day, is far more in favour
of what is termed “substantial” food, than of any kind of pottage.

12. We are unable to give further space to this subject here, but may probably
resume it at another part of the book, if practical.

The reader who desires to understand the principles of soup-

making is advised to study with attention the directions for “Baron
Liebeg’s Extract of Beef,” in the present chapter, and the receipt for
bouillon which follows it.
 A FEW DIRECTIONS TO THE COOK.

In whatever vessel soup is boiled, see that it be perfectly clean,

and let the inside of the cover and the rim be equally so. Wash the
meat, and prepare the vegetables with great nicety before they are
laid into it; and be careful to keep it always closely shut when it is on
the fire. Never, on any account, set the soup by in it, but strain it off
at once into a clean pan, and fill the stock-pot immediately with
water; pursue the same plan with all stewpans and saucepans
directly they are emptied.
Skim the soup thoroughly when it first begins to boil, or it will not
be easy afterwards to render it clear; throw in some salt, which will
assist to bring the scum to the surface, and when it has all been
taken off, add the herbs and vegetables; for if not long stewed in the
soup, their flavour will prevail too strongly. Remember that the
trimmings, and the bones of fresh meat, the necks of poultry, the
liquor in which a joint has been boiled, and the shank-bones of
mutton, are all excellent additions to the stock-pot, and should be
carefully reserved for it. The remains of roast poultry and game also
will improve both the colour and the flavour of broth or soup.
Let the soup be very slowly heated, and after it has been well
skimmed, and has boiled for a few minutes, draw it to the side of the
stove and keep it simmering softly, but without ceasing, until it is
done; for on this, as will hereafter be shown, its excellence
principally depends. Every good cook understands perfectly the
difference produced by the fast boiling, or the gentle stewing, of
soups and gravies, and will adhere strictly to the latter method.[13]
13. It is most difficult to render rapidly-boiled soup or gravy clear for table; but
that which is only simmered will clarify itself if allowed to remain undisturbed
for some little time (half an hour or so) after it is withdrawn from the fire; it
should then be poured very gently from the sediment. Calf’s feet stock
likewise may be converted into transparent jelly with far greater facility when
it has not been thickened by too quick boiling, by which so many
preparations in our English kitchens are injured.
 Pour boiling water, in small quantities at first, to the meat and
vegetables of which the soup is to be made when they have been
fried or browned; but otherwise, always add cold water to the meat.
Unless precise orders to the contrary have been given, onions,
eschalots, and garlic, should be used for seasoning with great
moderation; for not only are they very offensive to many eaters, but
to persons of delicate habit their effects are sometimes extremely
prejudicial; and it is only in coarse cookery that their flavour is
allowed ever strongly to prevail.
A small proportion of sugar, about an ounce to the gallon, will very
much improve the flavour of gravy-stock, and of all rich brown soups;
it may be added also to some others with advantage; and for this,
directions will be given in the proper places.
Two ounces of salt may be allowed for each gallon of soup or
broth, in which large quantities of vegetables are stewed; but an
ounce and a half will be sufficient for such as contain few or none; it
is always easy to add more if needful, but oversalting in the first
instance is a fault for which there is no remedy but that of increasing
the proportions of all the other ingredients, and stewing the whole
afresh, which occasions needless trouble and expense, even when
time will admit of its being done.
As no particle of fat should be seen floating on soup when sent to
table, it is desirable that the stock should be made the day before it
is wanted, that it may become quite cold; when the fat may be
entirely cleared off without difficulty.
When cayenne pepper is not mixed with rice-flour, or with any
other thickening, grind it down with the back of a spoon, and stir a
little liquid to it before it is thrown into the stewpan, as it is apt to
remain in lumps, and to occasion great irritation of the throat when
swallowed so.
Serve, not only soups and sauces, but all other dishes, as hot as
possible.
 THE TIME REQUIRED FOR BOILING DOWN SOUP OR STOCK.

This must be regulated by several considerations; for though the

mere juices of meat require but little boiling after they have been fully
extracted by the slow heating recommended by Baron Liebeg, soup
to which many vegetables are added (winter vegetables especially)
requires long stewing to soften and to blend properly the flavour of
all the ingredients which it contains, as that of no one in particular
ought to be allowed to predominate over the rest. We have in
consequence retained the old directions as to time, in many of the
following receipts; but an intelligent cook will soon ascertain from
practice and observation how and when to vary it with advantage.
Over-boiling renders all preparations insipid, and causes undue
reduction of them likewise: it is a fault, therefore, which should be
carefully avoided.
 TO THICKEN SOUPS.

Except for white soups, to which arrow-root is, we think, more

appropriate, we prefer, to all other ingredients generally used for this
purpose, the finest and freshest rice-flour, which, after being passed
through a lawn sieve, should be thoroughly blended with the salt,
pounded spices, catsup, or wine, required to finish the flavouring of
the soup. Sufficient liquid should be added to it very gradually to
render it of the consistence of batter, and it should also be perfectly
smooth; to keep it so, it should be moistened sparingly at first, and
beaten with the back of a spoon until every lump has disappeared.
The soup should boil quickly when the thickening is stirred into it,
and be simmered for ten minutes afterwards. From an ounce and a
half to two ounces of rice-flour will thicken sufficiently a quart of
soup.
Instead of this, arrow-root or the condiment known by the name of
tous les mois, which greatly resembles it, or potato flour, or the
French thickening called roux (see Chapter V.), may be used in the
following proportions:—Two and a half ounces of either of the first
three, to four pints and a half of soup; to be mixed gradually with a
little cold stock or water, stirred into the boiling soup, and simmered
for a minute.
Six ounces of flour with seven of butter, made into a roux, or
merely mixed together with a large knife, will be required to thicken a
tureen of soup; as much as half a pound is sometimes used; these
must be added by degrees, and carefully stirred round in the soup
until smoothly blended with it, or they will remain in lumps. We
would, however, recommend any other thickening rather than this
unwholesome mixture.
All the ingredients used for soups should be fresh, and of good
quality, particularly Italian pastes of every kind (macaroni, vermicelli,
&c.), as they contract, by long keeping, a peculiarly unpleasant,
musty flavour.
 Onions, freed from the outer skin, dried gradually to a deep brown,
in a slow oven, and flattened like Norfolk biffins, will keep for almost
any length of time, and are extremely useful for heightening the
colour and flavour of broths and gravies.[14]
14. The fourth part of one these dried onions (des ognons brûlés), of moderate
size, is sufficient for a tureen of soup. They are sold very commonly in
France, and may be procured in London at many good foreign warehouses.
 TO FRY BREAD TO SERVE WITH SOUP.

Cut some slices a quarter of an inch thick from a stale loaf; pare
off the crust and divide the bread into dice, or cut it with a small
paste-cutter into any other form. For half a pound of bread put two
ounces of the best butter into a frying-pan, and when it is quite
melted, add the bread; keep it turned over a gentle fire until it is
equally coloured to a very pale brown, then drain it from the butter,
and dry it on a soft cloth, or on a sheet of paper placed before a
clear fire upon a dish, or upon a sieve reversed.
 SIPPETS À LA REINE.

Having cut the bread as for common sippets, spread it on a dish,

and pour over it a few spoonsful of thin cream, or of good milk: let it
soak for an hour, then fry it in fresh butter of a delicate brown, drain
and serve the sippets very hot.
 TO MAKE NOUILLES.

(An elegant substitute for Vermicelli.)

Wet with the yolks of four eggs, as much fine dry sifted flour as will
make them into a firm but very smooth paste. Roll it out as thin as
possible, and cut it into bands of about an inch and a quarter in
width. Dust them lightly with flour, and place four of them one upon
the other. Cut them obliquely into the finest possible strips; separate
them with the point of a knife, and spread them upon writing paper,
so that they may dry a little before they are used. Drop them
gradually into the boiling soup, and in ten minutes they will be done.
Various other forms may be given to this paste at will. It may be
divided into a sort of ribbon macaroni; or stamped with small
confectionary cutters into different shapes. It is much used in the
more delicate departments of cookery, and when cut as for soup,
and prepared as for the Genoises à la Reine of Chapter XVIII.
makes very superior puddings, pastry, fritters, and other sweet
dishes.
 VEGETABLE VERMICELLI.

(Vegetables cut very fine for soups.)

Cut the carrots into inch lengths, then pare them round and round
in ribands of equal thickness, till the inside is reached; next cut these
ribands into straws, or very small strips; celery is prepared in the
same way, and turnips also are first pared into ribands, then sliced
into strips; these last require less boiling than the carrots, and
attention must be paid to this, for if broken, the whole would have a
bad appearance in soup. The safer plan is to boil each vegetable
separately, till tolerably tender, in a little pale broth (in water if this be
not at hand), to drain them well, and put them into the soup, which
should be clear, only a few minutes before it is dished. For cutting
them small, in other forms, the proper instruments will be found at
the ironmonger’s.
 EXTRACT OF BEEF; OR, VERY STRONG PLAIN BEEF GRAVY
SOUP.

(Baron Liebeg’s Receipt.)

Observation.—This admirable preparation is not only most
valuable as a restorative of the best kind for invalids who require
light but highly nutritious diet, it is also of the utmost utility for the
general purposes of the kitchen, and will enable a cook who can take
skilful advantage of it, to convert the cold meat which often abounds
so inconveniently in an English larder, from our habit of having joints
of large size so much served, into good nourishing dishes, which the
hashes and minces of our common cookery are not, though they
may answer well enough as mere varieties of diet. We shall indicate
in the proper chapters the many other uses to which this beef juice—
for such indeed it is—will be found eminently adapted. Of its value in
illness it is impossible to speak too highly; and in every family,
therefore, the exact mode of making it ought to be thoroughly
understood. The economist who may consider it expensive, must
remember that drugs and medical advice are usually far more so;
and in cases of extreme debility the benefit derived from it, when it is
well prepared and judiciously administered, is often remarkable. It
should be given in small quantities at first, and in its pure state. It
may afterwards be varied by the addition of vermicelli, semoulina, or
other preparations of the kind; and also by using for it a portion of
mutton, calf’s head, poultry, or game, when these suit a patient as
well as the beef.
Receipt.—Take a pound of good, juicy beef (rump-steak is best for
the purpose), from which all the skin and fat that can possibly be
separated from it, has been cut away. Chop it up small like sausage-
meat; then mix it thoroughly with an exact pint of cold water, and
place it on the side of the stove to heat very slowly indeed; and give
it an occasional stir. It may stand two or three hours before it is
allowed to simmer, and will then require at the utmost but fifteen
minutes of gentle boiling. Professor Liebeg directs even less time
than this, but the soup then occasionally retains a raw flavour which
is distasteful. Salt should be added when the boiling first
commences, and for invalids, this, in general, is the only seasoning
required. When the extract is thus far prepared, it may be poured
from the meat into a basin, and allowed to stand until any particles of
fat it may exhibit on the surface can be skimmed off entirely, and the
sediment has subsided and left the soup quite clear (which it
speedily becomes), when it may be poured gently off, heated in a
clean saucepan, and served at once. It will contain all the nutriment
which the meat will yield. The scum should always be well cleared
from the surface of the soup as it accumulates.
To make light beef tea or broth, merely increase the proportion of
water to a pint and a half or a quart; but in all else proceed as above.
Meat (without fat or skin), 1 lb.; cold water, exact pint: heating 2
hours or more; to boil 15 minutes at the utmost. Beef tea or broth.—
Beef, 1 lb.; water, 1-1/2 pint or 1 quart.
Obs.—To mingle vegetable diet in its best form with this extract, it
will be sufficient, as we have explained in “Cookery for Invalids,” to
boil down the kind of vegetable desired, sliced or cut up small, in a
very moderate quantity of water, until its juices are well drawn out;
then to strain off the liquid from it with slight pressure, and, when it
has become cold, to pour it to the chopped meat instead of water.
Several different sorts can be mixed together, and cooked in this
way: the water must boil before they are added to it.
They should be much more tender than when merely boiled for
table, but not reduced to pulp. The juice should remain clear; no salt
should be added; and it should be quite cold before it is stirred to the
meat.
When the extract is wanted for gravy, a small portion of onion, and
of herbs, carrots, celery, and the other usual vegetables, may be
stewed together, to give it the requisite flavour.
About an inch square of the Jewish beef (see Chapter of Foreign
Cookery), whether cooked or uncooked, will impart a fine savour to
it; the smoked surface of this should be pared off before it is used,
and it may be added in thin slices.
 BOUILLON.

(The Common Soup or Beef-Broth of France; cheap, and very

wholesome.)
This soup, or broth as we should perhaps
designate it in England, is made once or
twice in the week, in every family of
respectability in France; and by the poorer
classes as often as their means will enable
them to substitute it for the vegetable or
maigre soups, on which they are more
commonly obliged to subsist. It is served
usually on the first day with slices of
untoasted bread soaked in it; on the second, it is generally varied
with vermicelli, rice, or semoulina. The ingredients are, of course,
often otherwise proportioned than as we have given them, and more
or less meat is allowed according to the taste or circumstances of
the persons for whom the bouillon is prepared; but the process of
making it is always the same, and is thus described (rather
learnedly) by one of the most skilful cooks in Europe: “The stock-pot
of the French artisan,” says Monsieur Carême, “supplies his principal
nourishment; and it is thus managed by his wife, who, without the
slightest knowledge of chemistry, conducts the process in a truly
scientific manner. She first lays the meat into an earthen stock-pot,
and pours cold water to it in the proportion of about two quarts to
three pounds of the beef;[15] she then places it by the side of the
fire, where it slowly becomes hot; and as it does so, the heat
enlarges the fibre of the meat, dissolves the gelatinous substances
which it contains, allows the albumen (or the muscular part which
produces the scum) to disengage itself, and rise to the surface, and
the OZMAZOME (which is the most savoury part of the meat) to be
diffused through the broth. Thus, from the simple circumstance of
boiling it in the gentlest manner, a relishing and nutritious soup will
be obtained, and a dish of tender and palatable meat; but if the pot
be placed and kept over a quick fire, the albumen will coagulate,
harden the meat, prevent the water from penetrating it, and the
ozmazome from disengaging itself; the result will be a broth without
flavour or goodness, and a tough, dry bit of meat.”
15. This is a large proportion of meat for the family of a French artisan, a pound
to the quart would be nearer the reality; but it is not the refuse-meat which
would be purchased by persons of the same rank in England for making
broth.

It must be observed in addition, that as the meat of which the

bouillon is made, is almost invariably sent to table, a part of the
rump, the mouse-buttock, or the leg-of-mutton piece of beef, should
be selected for it; and the simmering should be continued only until
this is perfectly tender. When the object is simply to make good,
pure-flavoured, beef broth, part of the shin or leg, with a pound or
two of the neck, will best answer the purpose. When the bouilli (that
is to say, the beef which is boiled in the soup), is to be served, bind it
into a good shape, add to it a calf’s foot if easily procurable, as this
much improves the quality of the bouillon; pour cold water to it in the
proportion mentioned above, and proceed, as Monsieur Carême
directs, to heat the soup slowly by the side of the fire; remove
carefully the head of scum which will gather on the surface before
the boiling commences, and continue the skimming at intervals for
about twenty minutes longer, pouring in once or twice a little cold
water. Next, add salt in the proportion of two ounces to the gallon;
this will cause a little more scum to rise; clear it quite off and throw in
three or four turnips, as many carrots, half ahead of celery, four or
five young leeks, an onion stuck with six or eight cloves, a large half
teaspoonful of peppercorns, and a bunch of savoury herbs. Let the
whole stew VERY softly without ceasing, from four hours and a half to
six hours, according to the quantity: the beef in that time will be
extremely tender but not overdone. It will be excellent eating if
properly managed, and might often, we think, be substituted with
great advantage for the hard, half-boiled, salted beef so often seen
at an English table. It should be served with a couple of cabbages,
which have been first boiled in the usual way, then pressed very dry,
and stewed for ten minutes in a little of the broth, and seasoned with
pepper and salt. The other vegetables from the bouillon may be laid
round it or not at choice. The soup if served on the same day must