The Armour Archive

I'm with Kel on the beer vs. ale nomenclature issue.

There is a significant body of evidence which supports the practice of running straight from the mash tun to the cool ship, skipping the kettle. Whether or not it was common or questionable is another debate (cf the kerfuffle at Oxford University in the early 15th century which caused the brewers supplying the Uni to promise to boil their ale). Certainly by the Tudor age boiling was commonplace, for several reasons (like most historical questions, there are multiple causes): by then hopped beer was beginning to dominate the English palate, and mechanical aspects of every trade tend to "trickle down" into other facets of the craft.

I think there's too much stress placed on gruit by modern hobbyists who can't wrap their taste buds around an unbittered malt beverage. Try parti-gyle unbittered ale brewing sometime. It is an acquired taste, but it's pretty awesome all the same.

Bob

Thanks Brewer, I'm sure you've read most of the same stuff I have but it would be entertaining to compare notes someday. Last night I killed of the last of a keg of raspberry wheat ale pouring over my brewing library, scanning books and accumulating this collection of excerpts. My apologies to JT for the bandwidth but here you go Derian.

Derian,

First to address your semantic deflection, I use the terms ale and beer as they were applied in period when discussing historic brewing. In discussions of modern brewing science, I use the terms ale and lager as they are differentiated in modern brewing technology based on the yeast applied to fermentation. There is no confusion of their appropriate definitions in my mind, nor in modern brewing science. That particular historians choose to do else wise in their works, significantly those of Richard Unger, is clearly explained in their introductions. In particular, Unger does not discuss the actual process of brewing in any detail, as does Judith Bennett. Whereas Bennett details types and sizes of vessels and equipment from actual English records, Unger elects to suggest possibilities for these vessels without any reference provided.

Furthermore, I suspect Dr. Unger has never had the misfortune of tasting a brew wherein the mash has been boiled for an hour or more with hops. (or whatever herb) The astringent, tannic extracts of unconverted grist and unconvertible cereal hulls make for a particularly nasty porridge. If not stirred continuously, the draff settles to the kettle bottom and promptly burns producing a taste not unlike a tray of tobacco ashes. His suggestion that the mash was boiled in the same vessel used for conversion without running off the sweet wort is ill informed. If this were true, how could subsequent “runnings” of mash be conducted, a practice of which we have copious records? Enzymatic activity would be destroyed at the elevated temperature of the boil.

In addition, Unger expends numerous pages detailing ordinances, applications and penalties related to the widely applied term “gruit” without ever offering a suggestion as to what it might actually be. What is most certain from his work on Dutch brewing and subsequent expansion of that work in the surrounding Western and Northern European context, we can surmise that he is relatively unfamiliar with details of gruit brewing compared to the surfeit of information on hopped beer brewing that superceded it. To phrase it more directly, don’t count on Unger to learn more about gruit brewing. He is an excellent resource on the financial and political reasons gruit brewing survived as long as it did in the Netherlands compared to neighboring German Hansa cities. For more information on gruit, I suggest Handbook of Brewing - Processes, Technology, Markets, Edited by Hans Michael Eßlinger, 2009. the relevant portion of which I have copied below.

***********************************

Unger, Richard W. 2001
A history of brewing in Holland 900-1900 : economy, technology and the state
ISBN 9004120378

Pg13
In the early and high Middle
Ages, rather than extracting nutrients from the malt in a separate mash tun
before taking off the wort to boil it in a kettle, the two procedures typically took
place in the same vessel. Water and malt could be thrown together in a kettle
and heated along with any additives the brewer might think helpful. Then the
resulting liquor was placed in wooden troughs or even barrels for fermentation
by airborne yeast.7 If the malt was introduced directly into the brewing kettle
then the additives probably were mixed with the grains beforehand. In reading
the documents assuming the later practice of separate mashing and brewing
processes could be a source of confusion about the exact role of gruit.


N.B. Unger is the only author on the topic of medieval brewing practice that presupposes single vessel mashing and boiling. This is abundantly clear in his attempt to sort out the myriad uses for the term gruit. Since the word appears variously as a financial privilege, a bundle of malt and herbs and also as the flavour ingredients besides malt, his confusion is understandable. This conundrum is not resolved by the appearance of additional and separate mash tun and boiling copper – gruit still being in use well into the 13thC on the Continent, declining only as gruit rights were superceded by the growth of free brewing privileges in urban centres.

As usual, England was a special case, clinging to the traditional unhopped ales long after they had gone out of fashion, by taste and economically, a hundred and a half years later than their contemporaries.


Beer in the Middle Ages and Renaissance Richard Unger 2004
ISBN 0-8122-3795-


One of the reasons for the increasing capital requirement for twelfth- and
thirteenth- century brewers was the increasing use of copper kettles. Those
produced better beer, potentially in larger quantities, and, in the long run, at
lower cost than earlier wooden or pottery ones. Originally copper kettles may
have been made just from copper bands soldered together and so had trouble
when heated for long periods. But metalworkers got better at producing good
copper kettles which made them even more worth having. Boiling wort in a
copper kettle made it possible to decrease loss in boiling, to cut the amount of
fuel needed, and to make the whole brewing process go more quickly. Kettles
were undoubtedly the most valuable single pieces of equipment in the trade.
All kettles had to have an opening near the bottom for draining off the beer
which created a weak point. That limited the earlier pottery kettles to capacities
of loo to 150 liters. Copper kettles probably ran to over 1,000 liters by the
late thirteenth century and possibly to 4,000 by the fifteenth. It became common
to have these larger copper kettles sit on a circular, solid brick oven. Copper
kettles could have flat bottoms, unlike their pottery predecessors, so they
could sit firmly on a grate or supports over the fireplace. The first mention of
the production of beer in Finland notes that a kettle was used.12

12. Ashurst, "Hops and Their Use in Brewing," 32-34.


The kettle may have been a sign of the development of brewing and also of the making of
better-quality beer in a region on the technological periphery of Europe. With
better and bigger copper kettles, mashing and boiling probably took place in
separate vessels. By the thirteenth century, some urban brewers added hot
water to the malt in a wooden mash tun and then took off the resulting wort
to boil in a copper kettle. At that time specialist urban brewers probably had
a copper kettle for boiling water and wort, a mash tun, wooden troughs for
cooling and fermentation, and a number of barrels.13

13. Ashurst, "Hops and Their Use in Brewing," 51; De Clerck, A Textbook of Brewing,
54, 69,321-24; Hough, The Biotechnology of Malting and Brewing, 75.
N.B. (these sources speak to the necessity to remove spent hops after boiling to prevent contamination, not about the vessels.)


Pg 56

If mashing and boiling took place in the same container, as was still common
as late as the thirteenth century, then the addition of hops would originally
have taken place in the presence of the malt and might have even been
mixed with the malt before mashing began. Such circumstances could have
only confused brewers about the contribution hops made to the final product,
as well as increasing the chance of infection. Using hops may, in fact, have
promoted the separation of the two tasks of mashing and boiling so that the
herb could be added in the later stage and its role more carefully monitored.
With two vessels, one for each operation, boiling was no longer the phase for
extracting vegetable matter but the phase for stopping the work of certain
enzymes, of getting the most from the hops, and of sterilizing the brew. Two
vessels meant greater capital investment and that constraint may have slowed
the adoption of hops.


N.B. This is strongly at odds with the chemical reactions necessary to create a stable wort that will not be prone to infection. Boiling the cereal draff extracts numerous undesirable compounds from the grist as well as destroys enzymatic activity. Various techniques to avoid this include dipping as described in this passage from:

Brewing, Science and Practice
Dennis E. Briggs, Chris A. Boulton, Peter A. Brookes and
Roger Stevens 2004 ISBN_0849325471

Pg 205 of 863

Ch 6.1 Mashing

In traditional brewing, as practised in homes or small inns, hot water was placed in a
wooden tub or tun, and the grist (malt that had been ground between millstones) was
mixed and mashed in by stirring or rowing with a rake, paddle or `oar' (Fig. 6.1). No
reliable means of measuring temperatures was available. In one method, which gave rise
to the `classical' British infusion system, the water temperature was guessed to be
suitable by feel or by how clearly the brewer's face was reflected in the water. After a
period a basket was pushed into the mash and wort that seeped into it was ladled into a
receiver, in readiness for boiling with hops or other flavouring herbs. When wort
recovery became difficult more hot water was mixed into the mash (re-mashing) and
another, weaker wort was recovered. This was repeated until the worts were too weak to
be worth collecting. In later times wort was collected from mashes using primitive mash
tuns, in which the wort drained from the mash through a perforated `strainer' in the base
of the tun.


Hops and Gruit discussed:


Hough, J.S. The Biotechnology of Malting and Brewing 2005
Cambridge University Press 1985
ISBN 0521256720

Pg 2

Hops were introduced into Britain from Flanders in the sixteenth
century by Flemish immigrants. Competition and conflict arose between
those producing the traditional unhopped ale and the brewers making
the new 'beer'. Nowadays beer is a generic expression encompassing
what we term ale, a hopped beverage made with top yeasts, together
with those hopped malt beverages which are fermented with bottom
yeasts. Bottom yeasts are those which, at the end of fermentation, sink
in the vessels; they were first employed in Bavaria. Compared with
most top yeasts they produced a superior product. It is not surprising
therefore that, when the Bavarians released them to other regions, these
yeasts gradually replaced top yeasts in most parts of the world. They
are used for producing beers called 'lagers', after the German word
meaning storage or cellaring.


Handbook of brewing.--2nd ed. / [edited by] Fergus G. Priest, Graham G. Stewart.
Taylor & Francis Group, 2006 ISBN 0-8247-2657-X

Pg2 pp3

Brewers of unhopped beer depended upon high alcohol percentage
to preserve their beers, but this was relatively inefficient and such
beers generally had poor keeping qualities. Although brewing with hops
was a more complicated operation, requiring extra equipment, it did allow
the brewer to produce a weaker beer that was still resistant to spoilage
and thus make a greater volume of product from the same quantity of raw
material. Hops were introduced into Britain in the 15th century and
reached North America in the early 17th century.
For a time, the terms ale and beer were being applied to distinct beverages
made by separate communities of brewers. Ale described the
drink made without hops, whereas the term beer was reserved for
the hopped beverage. By the 16th century, ale brewers had also come to
use some hops in their brews, but at a lower level than was usual for
beer and an element of distinction remained. Ale would be recognized
as a heavy, sweet, noticeably alcoholic drink characteristic of rural areas.
Beer was bitter, often lighter in flavor and less alcoholic, but frequently
darker brown in color than ale and was popular in towns.3

3. Wilson, R.G. and Gourvish, T., The production and consumption of alcoholic
beverages inWestern Europe, in Alcoholic Beverages and European Society. Annex 1.
The Historical, Cultural and Social Roles of Alcoholic Beverages, The Amsterdam
Group, Eds., Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1993, pp. 1–34.


Handbook of Brewing
Processes, Technology, Markets
Edited by Hans Michael Eßlinger, 2009
ISBN: 978-3-527-31674-8

pg11-12

Hops were also – at least at some times – part of another beer additive – Gruit .
There is some of confusion about Gruit as it designates a brewing privilege, beer
additives, a beer type, or even flour or something baked, respectively, depending
on the context, the time and the place. Gruit is known first as a brewing privilege.
In Germanic societies brewing was a right that every free member possessed.
However, by his Capitulare de Villis from 811, Charlemagne made the right to brew
(for more than one’s own needs) a royal prerogative. The edict limited the right
to brew for the surrounding territory to the royal manors and imperial homesteads.
Thus, brewing changed from a common law to a privilege linked to a place. Consequently,
it became a general privilege of the king who later bestowed it to his lords [58] .
Thus, the German emperors Otto III and Heinrich mention a brewing
1.3 The Christian Middle Ages 11
12 1 A Comprehensive History of Beer Brewing
right and brewing ingredient called fermentum , stating it is synonymous with
Gruit . The brewing privilege was of commercial interest particularly to the cities,
where a relatively large population increasingly depended on beer produced by
professionals. Before the thirteenth century the majority of the few cities in Central
Europe were of Roman origin and under the rule of bishops. The bishops – and
probably other lords owning cities – excised their brewing privilege by compelling
the municipal brewers to buy essential brewing ingredients from their administration.
At least in the case of the bishop of Magdeburg, we have written evidence
that he had the privilege to provide the yeast for the brewers in his entire diocese.
That meant that brewers as far as Hamburg or Halle had to buy their yeast ( bärme )
from the Episcopal Bärmamt (Yeast Administration) [59] . Fermentum , always synonymous
with ‘ Gruit ’ , could indicate the physical form in which yeast was kept.
Pliny had already mentioned that yeast for wine making was preserved in antiquity
by mixing fl our and must at harvest time and baking little cakes thereof [60] . As
fermentum originally had designated the particle of the eucharistic bread sent by
the Bishop of Rome to the bishops of the other churches as a symbol of unity and
intercommunion (until the Council of Laodicea forbade the custom), fermentum =
Gruit could have originally meant a bread - like substance containing viable yeast.
It is noteworthy that Robert Boyle writing on digestion in the seventeenth century
concludes that something in a dogs stomach ‘ boild flesh, bread, gruit, & to the
consistence of a fluid Body ’ , thus putting Gruit next to bread [61] .
Later, Gruit designated the ready mix for brewing, to be exclusively purchased
from the local authorities (bishop, count or city council) or from their representatives.
This was an early form of taxation as the price of Gruit included a fee for
the authorities. Gruit contained malt, herbal ingredients like sweet gale (bog
myrtle), marsh (wild rosemary), coriander, yarrow and milfoil; and probably yeast,
attached to straw. The use of straw as a means to concentrate and preserve yeast
was widespread [62, 63] . Moreover, it had been common in monasteries to add
herbal ingredients like Myrica, Ficaria and Iris to the yeast [64] , probably as a bactericide
to protect the cultures against contamination. Apart from their bactericidal
and fungicidal properties, Gruit herbs also produces fl avor and psychotropic
effects. As Lobelius put it later in 1551: ‘ the same plants [ Myrica gale ] are added
at times of lacking hops/to the beer in the Nordic countries: sometimes only in
order to make the drinker happy/since gale goes up to the head and its spirit
pleasures the limbs … ’ [65] . Thus, almost all drinks, including malt liquors and
wine, had been spiced since antiquity and the medieval preference for spiced food
included drinks, too. Therefore, condiments were regarded as essential constituents
of beer, and their type and quantity contributed to its valuation. In many
locations hops were used as a constituent of Gruit before it became the sole beer
additive due to commercial and fi scal necessities.


Grape vs Grain – Charles Bamford 2008
ISBN 0521849373

Pg43

Hops have tremendous preservative value and so hopped beer
traveled better and had a longer shelf life. Before the advent of hop
usage in the United Kingdom, the ale (a term then restricted to
unhopped beer) was perforce strong, such that the high alcohol content
afforded protection against spoilage. By using hops, the brewer
could retail the beer at lower alcohol content - much to the distaste
of English traditionalists, some of whom referred to hops as a
"wicked and pernicious weed."
The brewers of beer were natives of Holland and Zeeland and
were harassed as "foreigners" by the English ale brewers. Henry VIII
went so far as to forbid the use of hops in 1530, as they were
an affront to "good ole English ale." Indeed, they were deemed
Protestant plants, coming as they did from the Low Countries. Two
decades later Edward IV repealed the ban and the terms ale and
beer rapidly became synonymous. Henry VIII had other impacts on
the brewing industry, with his dissolution of the monasteries. The
brewing traditions continued in universities and with the brewsters
(the alewives) and victualler-brewers (the equivalent of the modern
brew pub). The alehouses sold beer only, the taverns also sold wine,
while inns provided a bed, too.


Beer : Health and Nutrition Charles Bamforth 2004
ISBN 0-632-06446-3

Pg34

Religious origins
All monasteries and abbeys featured breweries. The symbols X, XX and XXX were
used as a guarantee of sound quality for beers of increasing strength (Savage 1866;
King 1947).
The monasteries passed on their skills to those brewing in their own homes (notably
the women: ‘ale wyfes’) and by the Middle Ages ale had become the drink at all mealtimes.
Out of the domestic brewing scene came the development of breweries, each
selling their own beer in a room at the front – they would be known today as ‘brew
pubs’. They produced two main products: ‘strong beer’ fermented from the first runnings
from the mash and ‘small beer’ from the weaker, later runnings.
In the early fourteenth century there was one ‘brew pub’ for every 12 people in
England. In Faversham in 1327, 84 out of 252 traders were brewers. All ale was sold
locally because of transport limitations and the dif culty of keeping beer for any length
of time. Ale was sold in three types of premises: inns, where you also sought food and
accommodation; taverns, which also sold wine; and ale-houses (Dunn 1979). And yet
90% of ale was still ‘home-brew’.
One of the earlier attempts to regulate standards of quality was in Chester, where the
penalty for a woman brewing bad ale was a drenching in the ducking chair (King 1947).
The number of ordinances and regulations in the middle years of the second millennium
that dealt with beer were nearly as many as dealt with another staple, bread (Drummond
& Wilbraham 1958). In the Liber Albus of 1419 compiled by John Carpenter and Richard
Whittington (of cat fame) there is mention of the ‘aleconners of the Ward’ whose job
was to taste each brew and report on it to the Mayor.
In Medieval times ale was associated with festivals and family events – thus there
were lamb-ales, bride-ales (bridals) and so on. A bride could sell ale on her wedding
day and take the proceeds (King 1947).

Pg35-36

Maintaining standards
Henry VI appointed surveyors and correctors of beer-brewers (King 1947):
Both the malt and hops whereof beer is made must be perfect, sound and sweet,
the malt of good sound corn – to wit, of pure barley and wheat – not too dry, nor
rotten, nor full of worms, called weevils, and the hops neither rotten nor old. The beer
may not leave the brewery for eight days after brewing, when officials should test
it to see that it is sufficiently boiled, contained enough hops and is not sweet.
Brewers of the time, though, were less than honest. In a popular play of the period, in
which souls are able to escape from Hell, the Devil is allowed to keep the soul of one
person as a souvenir. He chooses the brewer. In Oxford, where the University used to
have its own brewery, brewers were ordered to assemble in the Church of the Blessed
Virgin Mary and made individually to swear only to brew ale ‘as was good and wholesome,
so far as his ability and human frailty permitted him’.
The whole family drank. For instance, in 1512 the Earl of Northumberland’s household
– including the 8- and 10-year-old heirs – consumed 1 quart of ale or beer each
mealtime (King 1947). In the poorest of homes, ale was still the drink of the whole
family.
During the reign of Henry VIII [whose breakfast for three comprised a joint of roast
beef, a loaf of bread and a gallon of ale (Katz 1979)] one owner of an ale brewery
successfully fetched an action against his brewer for putting in ‘a certain weed called
a hop’. It was decreed that neither hops nor brimstone were to be put into ale (Savage
1866). We can be thankful that hops gained ascendancy, for they seem infinitely prefer-

36 Chapter Two
able to materials such as wormwood, gentian, chicory or strychnia that were sometimes
employed.
Savage (1866) has the date as 1524 when hops first came into the British Isles, from
Flanders where they had been used for centuries. Prior to the arrival of hops, ale had
sometimes been preserved with ground ivy.
Incidentally, Henry VIII was far from being the only monarch with a passion for
ale. Seemingly, Queen Elizabeth I had the local ale sampled for suitability in advance
of her travels around the nation. If it failed to pass muster, then her favourite London
product was shipped ahead of her in time for her arrival (Katz 1979).
Concerning hops, by 1576 Henri Denham wrote:
Whereas you cannot make above 8 or 9 gallons of indifferent ale out of one
bushell of mault, you may draw 18 or 20 gallons of very good Beere, neither is
the Hoppe more pro table to enlarge the quantity of your drinke than necessary
to prolong the continuance thereof. For if your ale may endure a fortnight, your
Beere through the benefit of the Hoppe shall continue a moneth, and what grace
it yieldeth to the teaste, all men may judge that have sense in their mouths – here
in our country ale giveth place unto Beere, and most part of our countrymen do
abhore and abandon ale as a lothsome drink.



In an alternative method, which gave rise to the classical mainland European
decoction mashing system, traditionally used for brewing lager beers, the mash was made
with slightly warm water. At intervals a `decoction' was carried out, that is, a proportion
of the mash, perhaps one-third, was withdrawn and slowly raised to boiling in the copper
that would later be used for boiling the wort. The hot mash was then transferred back to
the `main mash', and was mixed in. In this way the temperature of the whole mash was
increased. Repeated decoctions increased the mash temperature in steps, an approach that
minimized the risk of overheating and premature total enzyme destruction.


Ale vs Beer in the early 15thC

The Medieval Brewers of Great Waltham
Frank A King
The Brewing Trade Review/, October 1946

In August, 1408, the Court Baron elected
John Smyth as constable in place of John Gyn atte Wode, and appointed
John Drake and Richard Warrenger as aletasters in place of William Drake
and John Wrighte, deceased.

The ale-tasters' oath bound them to ensure that:

* i. ale and beer were wholesome and sold at the assise price.
* ii. bread was baked of the proper kind of flour, weighed by just
weights, and that the penny-loaf was of the weight fixed by the
assise.

The ale-tasters were fined if they did not fulfil their obligations; in
every successive court all six of them are fined fourpence or sixpence
each for the neglect of their duties, from which we may infer that they
accepted the office as an un-avoidable and unpleasant burden of' their
copyhold tenure, and discharged it badly, in the hope of speedy
dismissal from the honorary position.



Bennett, Judith M. 1996
Ale, Beer, and Brewsters in England :
Women's work in a changing world, 1300-1600
ISBN 0-19-507390-8

Pg17-18

Brewing itself was a time-consuming task. First, the malt was ground (not
too finely); then water was boiled; and then the two were mixed together, ideally
with the malt and water running together into a mash tun. From the mash
tun (or other vessel) was drawn off the wort, to which yeast and herbs were
added. Within a day (or less), the ale would be ready for drinking. Most brewers
drew off several worts from the malt, each successively weaker than the preceding
one. Specialist tools (for example, troughs, malt mills, or mash tuns)
eased the work of brewing, but ordinary household utensils were perfectly adequate.
Most people could brew ale easily by purchasing malt, grinding it with a
hand mill, boiling water in a pot, tossing in some malt, drawing off the wort
into a second vessel, and adding yeast.

Pg 78

It is also a story of masculinization, for beer brewing
was seldom pursued by women. Although the first person to sell beer
on Alciston manor (of which Lullington was a part) was a woman, neither she
nor any other woman was ever cited for brewing beer for sale to their neighbors.
In London in the 143os, some brewsters of ale still belonged to the Brewers' gild
on their own account, but all of the beerbrewers associated with the gild were
either men or married couples. In York at the same time, women occasionally
entered the freedom as alebrewers, but never as beerbrewers. In Southampton,
alebrewing remained long associated with women, but with the exception of a
few beerbrewers' widows, beerbrewing was a male trade.2

Pg79

In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, only one drink—ale in English,
cervisia in Latin—was prepared by England's brewers. Made with only malt,
water, and yeast, English ale was sweeter and less stable than beers brewed on
the continent, where hops were added to the process.9 By seething the wort with
hops, continental brewers were able to produce a beverage that, although more
bitter to the taste, drew more alcoholic content from less grain, carried much
more easily, and lasted longer.10 These advantages did not begin to attract English
interest until quite late. Hopped beer might have been known in England
as early as the late thirteenth century, when Richard Somer was selling Flemish
ale (cervisiam flandr') in Norwich.11 But if this Flemish ale was really what would
later be called beer, it was not readily accepted. For almost 100 years after Somer
offered his drink for sale in Norwich, no beer seems to have been bought or sold
in England, much less brewed
10. Of the many books on brewing history that discuss these distinctions between
ale and beer, the most reliable is H. A. Monckton, A history of English ale and beer (London,
1966).


pg 85-86

Adding hops to the brewing process also gave beerbrewers more drink for
their grain. Alebrewers generally drew about 7 gallons from a bushel of malt,
brewing their drink strong in order to improve longevity. Yet, because seething
the wort in hops assisted both fermentation and preservation, beerbrewers were
able to achieve the same effect with less grain. Reginald Scot claimed in his
enthusiastic book on hops, "whereas you cannot make above 8 or 9 gallons of
indifferent ale out of one bushel of malt, you may draw 18 or 20 gallons of very
good beer." He was roughly right. Yield ratios varied widely from brew to brew,
as brewers sought to produce beers or ales of weak, ordinary, or strong composition.
But beerbrewing generally yielded more drink for less grain. In 1502, for
example, Richard Arnold's recipe for brewing beer indicated that a brewer could
draw 60 barrels of single beer from 10 quarters of malt (or about 27 gallons per
bushel). At York in 1601, the difference was recognized in legislation: victualers
were enjoined to use a half quarter of malt when brewing beer but a full quarter
when brewing ale. To produce as much beverage of the same strength as an
alebrewer, a beerbrewer had to purchase about half the malt.55
To achieve this higher yield, beerbrewers did, of course, incur extra costs
for both hops and fuel, but their yields far offset these extra expenses. William
Harrison's wife, Marion, spent 10s. on malt, 2d. on spices, 4s. on wood, and
20d. on hops; if we assume that half of her fuel costs went to boiling water initially
(a process required in brewing both ale and beer) and half to seething the
wort in hops (required only in beerbrewing), brewing beer rather than ale cost
her an additional 2s. for wood and 2od. for hops. For that additional 3s.8d.
(about 25 percent of her total costs for materials), she more than doubled her
brewing output, producing about 20 gallons from every bushel of malt.56


55. Reginald Scot, A perfite platforme of a hoppe garden (London, 1576), STC 21866, pp.
5—6. Richard Arnold, The customs of London (1502, reprinted London, 1811), p. 247. Clark,
English alehouse, p. 117, n. 14.
56. Harrison, Description, pp. 137—138. The expenses of the Percy household in 1512
confirm that the cost of hops amounted to only a fraction of the cost of malt; see Thomas
Percy, ed., The regulations and establishment of the household of Henry Algernon Percy . . . Anno Domini
MDXII (1700; reprinted London, 1905), pp. 11—21.


pg86-87

But not every brewer could take advantage of
these opportunities, for beerbrewers needed more resources than alebrewers.
On the face of it, brewing beer was not necessarily costlier than alebrewing since
the methods were much the same; beerbrewing simply added another stage to
the process. To brew ale, water was boiled, poured over ground malt, let stand
for a time, drained off, cooled, and finally, yeast and seasonings were added. To
brew beer, an intermediate stage was needed: water was boiled, poured over
ground malt, let stand for a time, drained off, seethed for an hour or two with hops,

cooled, and finally, yeast and seasonings were added. Yet, despite the slight differences
between the two processes, beerbrewing usually required more tools,
more material, more labor, and more stock.
Although it was possible to brew beer with the same tools used to brew ale,
beerbrewing was much easier with additional equipment. As with alebrewing,
a single copper and single heating source (either an open fire or a closed furnace)
could suffice for beerbrewing, being used both for boiling the water initially
and later seething the wort in hops. This was how Marion Harrison brewed
three batches of beer from the same malt, alternating boiling and seething the
first, second, and third batches in her one furnace (she might have had several
coppers). But additional coppers and heating sources (one set for the initial boiling
of water and a second set for seething the wort in hops) made beerbrewing
much easier. So, too, did furnaces (which allowed for more careful seething)
and additional gutters, troughs, pails, and sieves (or better yet, double-bottom
vats). And because beerbrewers needed to store their drink longer, they also kept
more barrels and kilderkins than did alebrewers.61


61. Clark has also discussed beerbrewers' greater use of equipment in English alehouse,
esp. p. 101. For one example, see Statutes, 23 Henry VIII, c. 4. (beerbrewers could employ
two coopers but alebrewers only one).


English Industries of the Middle Ages L. F. Salzman 1913 ed

BREWING—ALE, BEER, CIDER pg 191

In Oxford in 1449, in which year nine brewers were
said to brew weak and unwholesome ale, not properly
prepared, and not worth its price, but of little or no
value, the brewers were made to swear that they
would brew in wholesome manner so that they
would continue to heat the water over the fire so
long as it emitted froth, and would skim the froth
off, and that after skimming the new ale should
stand long enough for the dregs to settle before they
sent it out, Richard Benet in particular undertaking
that his ale should stand for at least twelve hours
before he sent it to any hall or college.^ In London
also casks when filled in the brewery were to stand
for a day and a night to work, so that when taken
away the ale should be clear and good.* This
explains the regulation at Coventry in 1421 that ale
* new under the here syve [hair sieve] ' was to sell
for 1-1/4d. the gallon, and that ' good and stale ' for
1-1/2d.^ At Seaford there was a third state, ' in the
hoffe,' or * huff,' which sold for 2d.^

2 Coventry Leet Bk. (E.B.T.S.), 584. ^ V. C.H.Oxon.,n.20o.
* Liber Albus, i. 358. s Coventry Leet Bk. (E. E. T. S.), 25.
^ Suss. Arch. Coll., vii. 96.

Pg 193
About the end of the fourteenth century a new
variety of malt liquor, beer, was introduced from
Flanders. It seems to have been imported into
Winchelsea as early as 1400,2 but for the best part of
a century its use was mainly, and its manufacture
entirely, confined to foreigners. Andrew Borde,^
who disapproved of it, says, * Bere is made of malte,
of hoppes and water : it is a naturall drynke for a
Dutche man. And nowe of late dayes it is moche
used in Englande to thedetryment of many Englysshe
men ; specyally it kylleth them the which be troubled
with the colycke and the stone and the strangulion ;
for the drynke is a colde drynke ; yet it doth make
a man fat, and doth inflate the bely, as it dothe
appeare by the Dutche mens faces and belyes. If
the bere be well served and be fyned and not new it
doth qualify the heat of the lyver.'

2 V. C. H. Sussex, ii. 261^

Good stuff Kel, and of course this doesn't deal with the locations where wine-drinking predominated for most classes of people. They drank their wines 'new' - much newer than is normal for the last few hundred years.

Thanks Kal. I have more books to pick up!

chef de chambre wrote:Good stuff Kel, and of course this doesn't deal with the locations where wine-drinking predominated for most classes of people. They drank their wines 'new' - much newer than is normal for the last few hundred years.

Thanks Bob, I agree. The modern festivity surrounding the release of Beaujolais Nouveau is an orphan with a very long family history.

BTW, you might like another book by the irrepressible Dr. Charles Bamforth; Grape vs Grain - ISBN 0521849373. It is a fine overview of the cereal vs vine divide in Western Europe and how it changed over time.

Cheers!

There's a lot here I'd like to respond to, once I'm no longer loopy on Vicodin (just had a wisdom tooth out). Thank you for taking the time to write up your replies.

Okay a few quick comments (apologies if they don't make sense, see loopiness above):

Place is a major driver of this conversation. Unger essentially ignores England in his work (I recall something from his introduction to Beer in the Middle Ages and Renaissance to the effect of "I focus on the continent, if you want info on England, go elsewhere"), while many other authors writing in English, such as Bennett, focus on England. Thus it should not be a surprise to us that there are differences or even contradictions. We must keep in mind the context in which the authors are operating.

I don't recall Unger saying anything about boiling the mash; you are of course quite correct about that being a silly thing. I am, of course, talking about boiling the wort (the sweet liquid which is drained from the grains after mashing).

To that end, the focus on gruit (or hopped beer in general) is much more sensible if you do not have an English bias (or if you prefer, have a continental bias )

Also, it's clear that the use of "ale" solely as a term for unboiled, unhopped beer went away at latest by the time of Digby. See his Ale recipes, some of which use hops, some of which do not, and all of which involve boiling of the wort. Markham's ale recipes in his The English Housewife (1615) state that some people use hops, some don't, and all include boiling the wort.

Grape vs Grain is a great book. Dr. Bamforth knows his stuff. If you're interested in cider (in the English tradition) there's a great interview with him on the brewing network.

-Derian.

Derian le Breton wrote:My point is that medievally the terms were used essentially interchangeably. The clear hard line of "beer has hops, ale doesn't" is a modern one.

Actually, it's more complicated than that.

The terms "beer" and "ale" both go back to Old English (and thus to a time before hops were popular in brewing). The OED's entry for ale quotes an Icelandic poem that discusses the cognates:

The Alvismál says ‘öl heitir með mönnum, en með Ásum bjórr,’ it is called ‘ale’ among men, and among the gods ‘beer.’

Until the sixteenth century, forms of the word "ale" were more common in English than forms of the word "beer", though both appeared occasionally. In the sixteenth century, forms of the word "beer" appeared more often, and at that time the word was often used specifically to refer to a drink with hops. For instance, the OED quotes a writer from 1542 who said:

Bere is made of malte, of hoppes, and water: it is a naturall drynke for a Dutche man. And nowe of late dayes it is moche vsed in Englande to the detryment of many Englysshe men.

The same writer's comment on ale was:

Ale is made of malte and water; and they the whiche do put any other thynge to ale than is rehersed, except yest, barme, or godes~good, doth sofysticat theyr ale.

In 1594, H. Platt wrote:

It is the Hoppe onelie which maketh the essential difference betweene Beere and Ale.

The distinction is made occasionally at least through the eighteenth century. On the other hand, "beer" could also be used more generally as a term for an alcoholic beverage. For instance, in 1656 J. Smith wrote, "The beer of the decoction of Camomil flowers is miraculous."

--Ursula Georges.

Charlie Bamforth is awesome, a really sweet guy, and simply the best brewing technician alive today. He is not, however, an historian - he's a modern brewery technician. It's important to bear that in mind. I cite him constantly when talking about cutting-edge brewing technique and technology: pitch rates, maturation streamlining, physical-plant ergonomics and filtration hydraulics, that sort of stuff. But I won't cite him for historical work because that's not his field. You dig?

Note also there some misinformation within your quoted pieces, Kel. The one which leaps first to mind is that hopped beer didn't appear in England until the 16th century, which is widely known to be false. Given that, one must view the rest of the work with a much more critical eye.

I agree that Unger is a great source for economic and other data on which one can hang a number. He is decidedly not good for anything technical.

Ursula, you have to be very careful with Andrew Boorde (the source for your OED quote). The man was a xenophobic lunatic who hated a lot of what he saw in 1540s England. Much of his writing is nothing more than "these kids today" and "these damned foreigners" are "ruining everything". You have to sift very, very carefully for anything useful. Still, I love that quote - beer "doth make a man fat, and doth inflate the bely".

Source evaluation is a bitch.

Bob

Derian le Breton wrote:

Dan Howard wrote:People are confusing beer and ale.

Any difference between those terms is a modern affectation.

-Derian.

'Pends what y'call modern, Andrew Boorde wrote in the 1540s , freebie pdf and kindle version to be had by clicking on the title of the compilation here ->The fyrst boke of the introduction of knowledge made by Andrew Borde, of physycke doctor. A compendyous regyment; or, A dyetary of helth made in Mountpyllier It's actually in, A compendyous regyment; (The full version of the snippet quoted by the OED above)

Of ale.

Ale is made of malte and water; and they the which do put any other thynge to ale then is rehersed, except yest, barme, or godesgood, doth sofystical theyr ale. Ale for an Englysshe man is a naturall drynke. Ale must haue these propertyes: it must be fresshe and cleare, it muste not be ropy nor smoky, nor it must haue no weft nor tayle. Ale shuld not be dronke vnder .v. dayes olde. Newe ale is vnholsome for all men. And sowre ale, and deade ale the which doth stande a tylt, is good for no man. Barly malte maketh better ale then oten malte or any other corne doth: it doth ingendre & grose humoures; but yette it maketh a man stronge.

Of bere.

"Bere is made of malte, of hoppes, and water: it is a naturall drynke for a Dutche man. And nowe of late dayes it is moche vsed in Englande to the detryment of many Englysshe men; specyally it kylleth them the which be troubled with the colycke, and the stone, & the strangulion ; for the drynke is a colde drynke; yet it doth make a man fat, and doth innate the bely, as it doth appere by the Dutche mens faces & belyes. If the bere be well serued, and be fyned, & not new,s it doth qualyfy the heat of the lyuer.

Read up for Boorde. I've already discussed him. You're giving him too much credence.

Not a fan of Boorde m'self Bob, his rantings against drinking water(And Sir John Fortescues earlier similar moaning) , I feel, have coloured current views of muddyevil drinking habits in the same way that one scene in Life and Times of Henry VIII has influenced how the punters think people ate in the past.

But there do seem to be a distinction tween the two

1289 an aleseller in Norwich is prosecuted for selling Flanders Beer in contravention of the Norwich Assise of Ale. 1391 hoppynbeer and estrichbeer being imported into London.

1418 London sent to the troops at the seige of Rouen 300 tuns of beer @ 13shillings 4pennies a tun and 200 tuns of ale at 20/- (20 shillings or £1 in old money)


Erazmus was a git too =o)

Sir Digby Chicken-Caesar wrote:But there do seem to be a distinction tween the two

The conclusion we seem to have come to is "it depends."

There is evidence of the terms being used distinctly as above, and there is evidence from slightly later of "ale" being used to refer to things which would earlier only be called "beer".

As such, I retract my statement about any difference between the two being a modern affectation, but I stand by my statement that drawing a hard line between "ale" and "beer" w.r.t. the addition of hops is not always historically valid (based on the evidence presented above).

-Derian.

"So did everyone in Europe drink beer, probably not but most would have done as some point in their life and it was a predominant method if making your drinking water safe."

That is not why people drank beer or ale. People drank ale or beer because it is a foodstuff.

Their knowledge of pathogens as we understand them was zero. They were well aware of tangible pollution, smell, particles etc from tanners, animals shitting etc, they knew that standing water presented more problems than running water. The fact that the Victorians still believed in 'miasma' in the face of a cholera epidemic until it was proven that invisible contamination from sewage caused the disease.

It is somewhat of a myth to explain that beer was drunk because it was safer, societies across the world have drunk fermented drinks, with access to reasonably clean water.

Medieval people drank water, they had access to wells and springs, water was put on the table to drink and to mix with wine, there are descriptions where to access clean water.

The possibility that the production of beer/ale might reduce any pathogens is a handy plus, not an intention.

Nother couple of little snippets that may be of interest


Ordinacio de Berebruers.

28 May, 4 Edward IV. [A.D. 1464], came good men, exercisingthe mistery of Berebruers, into the Court of the lord the Kingin the Chamber of the Guildhall, before Matthew Philipp, theMayor, William Marowe, Richard Lee, John Waldene, WilliamTaillour, Ralph Verney, Thomas Oulegreve, Robert Basset,William Hamptone, John Stoktone, John Tate, Nicholas Marchall, Aldermen, and presented the following petition :—

"To the full honorable lord the Maire and Worshipfullsoveraignes the Aldermen of the Citee of London

"Shewen mekely unto youre goode Lordshipp and maistershippes the goode folke of this famous Citee the which usenBerebruyng within the same that where all Mistiers and Craftysof the saide Citee have rules and ordenaunces by youre greteauctoritees for the comon wele of this honorable Citee madeand profite of the same Craftys So that every Craft shulde bedemeaned as trouth and goode conscience requiren in eschuyngof all falsehode and untrouth But as for bruers of Bere as yetbeene none Ordenaunces nor Rules by youre auctorites madefor the comon wele of the saide Citee for the demeanyng of thesame Mistiere of Berebruers For lacke of which ordenauncesand rules the people of this Citee myght be gretely disceyvedas in mesure of Barelles Kilderkyns and Firkyns and in hoppesand in other Greynes the whiche to the saide Mistiere apperteynen Forasmoche as they have not ordenaunces ne Rulesset amongis theym like as other occupacions have It is surmysedupon theym that often tymes they make theire Bere of unseasonable malt the which is of litle prise and unholsome formannes body for theire singuler availe Forasmoche as thecomon people for lacke of experience can not knowe the perfitnesse of Bere aswele as of the Ale Please it therfore youresaide lordshipp and Maistershippes the premisses tenderlyconsidered to enact and establisshe that from hensforth no manof what degre or condicion he be take upon hym to sill anyBere within the Citee of London by Barelles Kilderkyns orFirkyns but if the barell and other vessell conteigne after theassise accordyng to an Acte late made by the Auctorite of aComon Councell entred of Recorde in the Cambre [sic] of theYeldehall that is for to say the Barell xxxvi galons, the Kilderkyn xviii galons and the Firkyn ix galons (fn. 25) upon payne offorfature of þe same vessell and for to lose vjs. viijd. as ofte ashee so dothe that oone half to the Chambre of London and thatother half to theym that shall presente it And also that nomanne nether Freman nor foreyn take upon hym to brewe anyBere or sill any Bere wtin the Citee aforesaide or brew Bereout of this Citee and sil it unto any personne of the saide Citeeto be dronke wtin the same but if it be made of sesonable malthoppes and other greynes the which to the saide Mistier apperteignen and holsome for mannes body upon payne of forfatureof the same Bere made contrary to this ordenaunce in whoshandys it shalbe founde and to lose xiijs. iiijd. to be devided asthe saide vjs. viijd. as ofte as he so is takyn in defaut Andfurthermore that yerly from hensfourth of the feleashippe ofBerebruers wtin the Citee of London and to the Citee servyngij sufficiaunt and able persones occupying the saide Mistere ofBerebruers by the Maire and Aldermen for the tyme beyng bechosen and sworn duly and treuly wt the Chamberleyn for thetyme beyng or ell' wt an officer by the Maier to theym assignedto serche and present all the defautes to the Chambirleyn andthe names of all that dothe contrary to this ordenaunce."

The above articles approved and ordered to be placed onrecord.

From: 'Folios 21-31: Oct 1463', Calendar of letter-books of the city of London: L: Edward IV-Henry VII (1912), pp. 39-54. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk

To Robt. Clerke, baker; John Maye, ale brewer; Robt. Hamon, beer brewer; Nicholson's wife, poulter; Edm. Kandishe, butcher; Robt. Reynold, fishmonger; Chanbers, poulter, Hychington's wife, Tylour, pikemonger, and others; Thos. Jenetts, tallow chandler; Wm. Grenefeld's wife for butter; John Blage, grocer; Wm. Baynard, wax-chandler; David Capper's wife for washing; Roger [Whyter]eason (?) for charcoal: (amounts from 6s. 8d. to 22l.). Wm. Jeket for lodging, &c, 39l. 11s. 11d. Lord Latymer, Sir Roger Cholmeley of the North, Wm. Harington of York, and Robert Trappes, goldsmith, for loans. Ric. Pikering for silks, part of which were sent to my lady and the rest, to the North, and "there spoiled by Aske." Thos. Hamon, skinner, for an old debt to Thos. Dalton, skinner, and "a fur of black jennets laid in purple satin which was spoiled by Aske." Creker, shoemaker, for boots, shoes, slippers, and buskins, "whereof part was carried in the North at my Lord's last going down and spoiled by Aske." John Blage, grocer, for spice carried to Topcliff. Sir Wm. Fairfax for arrearages of the sheriffwick of Northumberland for two years, "streted" to him out of the Exchequer as sheriff of Yorkshire. Sir George Darcy for arrearages of one year, for which Dr. Stephins and "the said William" stand bound, for discharge of which the Earl granted a warrant to be paid out of the manor of Tadcaster. Sir Cuthbert Radcliff for arrearage for his lieutenant-ship of 50l., also 50l. for the same to Wm. Carnaby, as Cuthbert Carnaby told William Stapulton. The master of Sempringham. Skut, Queen's tailor. Wm. Dale for buying wine. Thos. Asshe, poticary. Mr. Thomas Henage, an obligation which the Earl says he paid at my lord Steward's house of Little St. Albans at Westm., 104l. Lawrence Warren, goldsmith, for a flower of diamonds, 20l. Obligations dated 5 Aug. 19 Hen. VIII. to Nich. Vinacheis; 6 Dec. ao supradicto, for 281l. 11d. on which obligation it appears the Earl received 50l. more. To my lady his wife for her living, behind 2 1/2 years at Easter last, 500 mks.

From: 'Henry VIII: June 1537, 26-30', Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 12 Part 2: June-December 1537 (1891), pp. 47-85. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/


There are also tantalising little clues to the differences like the Oxford assise from the mid 16thC banning 'Bere bruers' from brewing ale or sharing premises with ale brewers and an early Stuart brewer claiming to get 18gallons of beer from a bushel of malt but only 8 of ale.

Since we're on the topic...

Any thoughts on: I. Hornsey, A History of Beer and Brewing, Cambridge, UK: Royal Society of Chemistry, 2003?

I read a very short review article that was favorable... I was wondering if anyone here had read it.

-Derian.

I don't have it. I *wants* it, yes Precious.



Bob

Yes, a pleasant read with a surfeit of quotes from historical and literary sources on everything from the brewing practices of ancient Sumeria and Egypt to specific problems faced by ale conners in small English villages. Any student of British brewing should have it. Not a single useful thing about the details of gruit ale brewing but one of the best resources for heather ale! Definitely an Anglo-centric brewing publication but well worth having on the shelf.

My favourite quote from the book comes from the introduction:

Ever since man became sapient he has devised means of intoxicating
himself, principally in order to create, albeit temporarily, a more pleasurable
milieu.

Yes. Yes indeed.

What about brewing on the continent? I'm mostly interested in the low countries / northern France.

-Derian.

For that, unless you can read German or Dutch, which I can't - either book on brewing by Richard Unger. I've been trying to collect information on Hanseatic city brewing, especially Hamburg and Lubeck but its sparse in English.

Yeah, I have one of Unger's books, and am studying it.

I can muddle through French slowly, but alas, not German or Dutch.

-Derian.