[Sca-cooks] swiss chard =/= beet greens?

[lilinah at earthlink.net]

Giano wrote:
>Am Dienstag, 17. Mai 2005 22:20 schrieb Carole Smith:
>  > Aren't the leaves of modern beets edible?
>
>Well, I've eaten some and I'm still around. It's just not worth buying beets
>for the leaves.

{BG} That depends. While i do not dislike beets, i think their leaves 
are much tastier. It's often difficult to find a bunch that hasn't 
been topped (had the leaves cut off) in the US, though.

>  > I have been told by cooks I thought knowledgeable that the roots of the
>  > beet were not considered food in period, but that the leaves were.  It
>  > hasn't been on my hot list to verify this one.
>
>I doubt it. I guess it is possible that Apicius means beet greens served with
>mustard and vinegar, and that de Rontzier wants them pickled with anise, but
>both seem to jive much better with the root.

I think Apicius was probably going for the greens, but there's at 
least one recipe in Rumpolt that calls for "rote ruben", but he's 
quite late in "SCA-period". From what i can tell, leaves are 
generally what is called for in 14th and 15th century cookbooks.

Marinated Beets with horseradish
Marx Rumpolt, Ein New Kochbuch, 1581

3. Rote Ruben eyngemacht mit klein geschnittenen Merrettich/ Aniss/ 
Coriander/ und ein wenig Kuemel/ sonderlich wenn die Ruben 
geschnitten/ gesotten mit halb Wein und halb Essig

3. Red beets preserved with small cut horseradish/ anise/ coriander/ 
and a little caraway/ special if the beets are cut/ marinated in half 
wine and half vinegar.

Unless of course, Rumpolt actually meant "tomatoes" ;-}
-- 
Urtatim (that's err-tah-TEEM)
the persona formerly known as Anahita