[Sca-cooks] Is Rhubarb period for Europe? or not?

[Terry Decker]

Chinese rhubarb is Rhuem officinale and is grown primarily for medicinal 
purposes.  Garden rhubarb is Rhuem rhabarbarum and is grown for the edible 
stalks.  Whether rhubarb was eaten in Europe before the 17th Century is open 
to question.  That it was known, there is no doubt.  To quote Christopher 
Columbus (although he almost certainly mis-identified both rhubarb and 
cinnamon), "I have found rhubarb and cinnamon, and I shall find a thousand 
other things of value."

Ballester and French in "Practical Medicine from Salerno to the Black Death 
reference a medical question from 1299 about the action of rhubarb.  And 
from the Regimen sanitatis salernitanum 
http://www.archive.org/stream/schoolofsalernum00hariiala/schoolofsalernum00hariiala_djvu.txt , 
"Thus for a purge for a person of noble birth Cophon recommended rhubarb, 
very finely powdered, while for peasants he used mirobolanum macerated with 
or without sugar."

Bear

> Regina replied to me with:
> <<< Rhubarb.  Not period for Western Europe, but works (says the  owner of 
> a 150
> year old rhubarb plant).  I love the stuff in various forms to  include 
> just
> cut up and dipped in sugar (substitute now), but there is a price to 
> pay... >>>
>
> I'm trying to verify whether Rhubarb is period for Europe or not, and 
> finding conflicting information. I can't seem to find my copy of  Waverly 
> Root's book right now.
>
> But the following is typical of what I'm finding on the web from  several 
> sites.
>
> <<< Rhubarb, botanically-known as Rheum rhabarbarum, comes from a 
> combination of the Greek word Rha for the Volga River, and the Latin  word 
> barbarum, for the region of the Rha River inhabited by non- Romans. The 
> popular edible species, Rheum rhaponticum, originated  most likely in 
> Mongolia or Siberia. It was introduced to Europe by  Italian botanist 
> Prosper Alpinus in 1608 as a substitute for Chinese  Rhubarb whose roots 
> were used medicinally. >>>
>
> One version was introduced in 1608, so marginal. But it would seem  that 
> the "Chinese" version was known and used medicinally.
>
> So, Regina, what are you basing your comment on?
>
> Thanks,
>   Stefan