by Chandler Peavy
The Carolina Housewife, a cookbook designed for southern families of 1851, presents women as the central figure of the home. Sarah Rutledge is the daughter of Edward G. Rutledge, a man of political power and social prominence, and most importantly, an owner of slaves, wrote the cookbook. In this case, the cookbook was not written by a cook for other cooks, rather it was written for a slave mistress for other slave mistresses. Growing up on her father’s plantation, she did not labor in the kitchen where there was an abundance of hands to prepare her meals. The recipes in this book are intended to be prepared by domestic slaves and to give other plantation mistresses information about domestic management.
The Carolina Housewife, gathered from The American Antiquarian Cookbook Collection, has significant historic value. The extended name of The Carolina Housewife, indicated by an “Or,” reads “House and Home.” The duality of the title indicates that this cookbook was intended to be a guide for how housewife was to run her home in this era. It tethers the housewife to the home in such a way that the two cannot be viewed separately, although she could not be more distant from the kitchen. The introduction to the new edition of The Carolina Housewife, is written by Ann Rutledge, a descendent of Sarah Rutledge, who tells the story of her famous family. Sarah Rutledge was the daughter of Edward Rutledge, the 39th Governor of South Carolina and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. Her family owned a large rice plantation near Charleston with over fifty slaves.. There is an extreme likelihood that these recipes were both designed, and prepared, by slaves.
The Carolina housewife becomes her own character within the narrative of this cookbook, standing as an emblem for the ideal housewife. This character is just as fictional as the possibility of any woman being able to become her. This cookbook was not for all women of the time and likely did not appeal to those living in poverty. If an individual reading this book could not attain the ingredients or supplies to fulfill these instructions, she would have no purpose with The Carolina Housewife. In the 1850s, cookbooks were a luxury item, and The Carolina Housewife would not have been priority expenditure for a typical person. The book claims to contain “receipts for dishes that have been made in…[their] own homes, and with no more elaborate abatire de cuisine than that belonging to families of moderate income” (Rutledge). While the dishes may have been prepared within the homes of these families, these families could not have come from moderate income. What seemed to be moderate income to this author may have been moderate to her, but not in comparison to the community outside of her own. Additionally, a less experienced cook would be unable to perform the tasks required of these recipes. A common housewife would not be able to carry out these recipes, much less have the countless hours to set aside for certain steps require. A common housewife would not have the wealth, access to ingredients, or opportunity to utilize the recipes in this cookbook. It is only logical that a woman of a prosperous family would have the money to spend on the ingredients and cookbook. If she has the money for those two components, one can presume that she would have the money for the third component as well: her labor.
The preface of The Carolina Housewife describes the role of food within this southern plantation community. It explains why the title of the book is called both a house and home. The explanation consists of the thought that “a House is not a Home, though inhabited, unless there preside over its daily meals a spirit of order and a certain knowledge of the manner in which food is to be prepared and served” (Rutledge). A home is constructed on the basis of food and those that enjoy the dinners served there. There is difficulty in instructing one as to how to follow the manuscript – the recipes – of a family. The manuscript contains “a whole lifetime’s experience” and “cannot be in the possession of more than one family in ten” (Rutledge). Additionally, “it rarely happens that more than one woman in three generations takes the pains to collect and arrange receipts; and if her descendants are many; the greater part lose the benefit of her instructions” (Rutledge). Another type of cookbook one could refer to would be a French or English Cookery Book, representative of the extensive cultural exchange going on in Charleston at this time. Yet, an issue ensues: “these are for French or English servants, and almost always require an apparatus beyond…[their] reach or too complicated for…native cooks” (Rutledge). The native cooks—the slaves of these Charleston families—were unable to recreate the recipes included in these French or English Cookery books. One can assume that slaves were illiterate and therefore unable to follow recipes from cookbooks such as these. This would lead them to primarily refer to their own manuscript. The role of women in the antebellum household was geared around presentation. She was not responsible for the cooking itself, but for what was being cooked and to whom it was being served: she stood as the spirit of order. Therefore, the difficulty of following the manuscript and her order was left to those who were actually in the kitchen.
This cookbook presents the recipes in an imperative voice, as if the writer is telling the reader what to do and how to do it. These recipes, in paragraph form, are much like a story. This is likely due to the fact that these recipes were collected from the domestic workers in the first place. There is a natural, inexact method of instruction that one can see in “An easy an excellent mode of making domestic yeast.” The recipe calls for the cook to “take as much hops as you can grasp in your hand” and select “two good sized Irish potatoes” (Rutledge, 1). An exact measurement is not given and is perhaps not necessary for a well-experienced cook, but without those instincts, a mistake could be made. Simple terms, such as “while the liquor is hot” and “when the mixture is nearly cold,” signify when the next step in the cooking process ought to occur (Rutledge, 1). Clearly, the cook must be practiced in order to know just how hot or just how cold the liquor and mixture should be. The recipe mentions that if it is cooked in the morning, the yeast should be “fit to use at night” (Rutledge, 1). Once again, there is not mention of a specific time span. The lack of specificity in this recipe indicates that the individual who created this recipe was undeniably experienced in the kitchen, so much so that one could conclude that this is a level of experience attributed to a domestic worker, rather than a housewife.
Many of the recipes in the cookbook are artifacts of Charleston’s history. One of these recipes was “An Indian dish called Sofky” that can be found in the miscellaneous section in the back. It indicates the Native American legacy in southern food. She notes that “it requires some experience, too, to make this dish nicely” (Rutledge, 195). The corm is pounded and soaked for six or eight hours until the grain is perfectly soft. This recipe requires a great deal of time and dedication to recreate effectively. It also addresses how “for the sick, take the liquid part only…[and] if the stomach be very delicate, and unable to retain the food usually given, prepare it without any seasoning at all” (Rutledge, 195). The recipe further explains how “this dish is found on the tables of some of the families of Alabama and Mississippi” (Rutledge, 195). Therefore, a traditional Indian dish was repurposed for a different social context: a southerner’s dinner table. These recipes contain signifiers of both domestic workers and the cultural exchange going on in Charleston at this time. What is introduced as southern foods for southern families may not be southern at all, but a representation of a multitude of cultural influences.
These recipes were difficult and tedious to make, requiring extensive labor to create. This can be observed in the recipe, “To candy orange peel.” The reader is instructed to “leave your oranges on the tree until the rind is thick—any time in January will do” (Rutledge, 138). This suggests that whoever enjoys this recipe must have access to orange trees. When the fruit is removed from the tree, the cook will weigh the fruit and gather that same weight in sugar for this recipe. From there, the oranges should be cut in half and boiled, the sugar moistened, the peels “impregnated with syrup” and then put in an oven again until they are dried and can be lain in the syrup to start the process all over again until the syrup is exhausted (Rutledge, 138). Not only is it costly to own orange trees and purchase the sugar, but it is even more costly to own an oven. This recipe requires both labor and technology, both of which have a price the common housewife cannot pay.
This cookbook, an exact copy of the original edition, is a representation of what it was like to be a housewife in 1851, but it is only that: a representation. Those who truly presided over the kitchen were the slaves belonging to these Charleston families. These recipes were not necessarily family heirlooms, but rather products of these families’ wealth. If a woman has money to expend on ingredients and the cookbook, why would she not have money to expend on labor? The story-like narrative of this cookbook reveals how these recipes were captured through the retelling of domestic workers. Additional recipes present a more sinister side of cultural exchange, such as the Native American slave trade. Lastly, the labor and technology involved in the making of these recipes unveils the type of person who would be able to afford this sort of food. The Carolina Housewife provides the recipe for how a housewife should cook up a home, the first ingredient being somebody who can cook the food.
Works Cited
Rutledge, Sarah. The Carolina Housewife. U of South Carolina P, 2013.
Reading Southern Cookbooks 