[Sca-cooks] Beets (was Eggplant)

[david friedman]

Kiri asks:

>So are you saying that the pie should be made with white beet roots, 
>red beet roots or white or red greens?

I am saying that I think it should be made with beet greens--white 
more likely, red possible. As I read Gerard, using the root was a 
novel idea at the time, so although a cook might possibly have done 
it, a recipe that intended the root rather than the leaf would say 
so. Clearly Gerard regards use of the greens, both white and red, as 
a common practice. The red seem to be coming into England in the 16th 
century, so I don't know how common they were at the end of it.

>I understand about the problems with secondary sources, but, at the 
>time, it was all I had.  Not making excuses, mind you, but you go 
>with what you have.

Of course. My point isn't that you never use secondary sources, just 
that you have to be aware of the risks of doing so. Moderns think of 
"beet" as primarily meaning the root, so are likely to bias their 
interpretation accordingly.

>According to the bibliography, Ms. Lorwin used the 1597 edition of the herbal.

Useful information. Then I think we can assume, absent further 
information, that the passage is in the 1597 edition. The fact that 
it was still in the 1633 edition suggests that using the beet root 
was still a somewhat novel idea then--on the other hand, it might 
just be a matter of not having bothered to change that particular 
passage for the new edition.

>It is, I believe, reasonable to think that the red variety was 
>certainly known when Partridge wrote his recipe.

Yes.

>And, if that's the case, even though it may not have been a common 
>thing, if he meant to use the root, it may well have been that it 
>was the red beet...since, as you point out, the part of the white 
>that was most commonly used was the greens.

But we don't have any evidence that he meant to use the root, do we? 
All he says is:

"Take Beets, chop them small, and ..."

That could be the greens as easily as the roots. Since we have no 
evidence he intended the roots we have no reason to assume that he 
meant red beets--although he could have.

>I'm not trying to keep the discussion going, but rather to make sure 
>that the recipe I've used for years...and that folks here in 
>Atlantia know and love, is accurate.  So far, I've not seen anything 
>that makes me think that the way I've been doing it is wrong...or 
>out of period.

"Out of period" is tricky. My guess is that, by 1601, someone, 
somewhere in Europe, had cooked red beet roots--probably earlier than 
that. Gerard probably had--I wouldn't think he would recommend them 
without trying them.

But the question isn't whether beet roots are period, it's whether 
Lumbard Tarts using beet roots is a period recipe. I think the answer 
to that question is "probably not." The recipe doesn't specify the 
root, the use of the root seems to be an unusual practice at that 
point, judging by Gerard's comment, so there is no reason to think 
the root is intended and some reason to think it isn't.

I should add that I also think the Lorwin recipe is evidence that she 
is not a very reliable secondary source--although, to her credit, she 
did give the information on which she based her conclusion. She has 
chosen to interpret the recipe as a modern cook would--and supported 
that interpretation with evidence that, carefully read, has precisely 
the opposite implication.

It would be interesting to know what the dates of her  "And beets 
were used in mnay ways by cooks, including beet-root salads, both hot 
and cold" are. Does she say? If she actually has lots of recipes that 
are clearly beet-root and refer to it as "beet" and are as early as 
the 1590's, that would provide support for her position. On the other 
hand, if those turn out to be recipes from the second half of the 
17th century, it would be a further reason to distrust her. And, 
despite the title of her book, I believe quite a lot of the recipes 
are from mid-17th century sources.
-- 
David/Cariadoc
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/