Ebbing & Vilsteren: Of gruiters, gruitkettles, and gruithouses. From Bier! Geschiedenis van een Volksdrank, 1994.

BEER! History of a Drink for Everyone. [p. 20-27]

R.E. Kistemaker and V.T. van Vilsteren. Amsterdam: De Bataafse Leeuw, 1994.

Of gruiters, gruitkettles, and gruithouses.

About a typical medieval phenomenon.

H. Ebbing and V.T. van Vilsteren.

Translation © Susan Verberg, 2017

Before the 14^th century, when brewers changed over to hopped beer, our area brewed and consumed gruit beer. Little is known of the consistency of gruit beer and how it was made. A right was connected to the making of this beer: the gruitrecht. And several sources mention gruiters, gruit kettles and gruithuizen. This chapter is about the content of gruitrecht and what on average happened in the gruithuis.

The right to gruit.

As we’ve seen [in previous chapters], in the time of Charlemagne at around 800 AD laws were instituted in many parts of the large empire for different craftsmen to be present on the manors. One of these craftsmen had to be the person responsible for the making of fermented drinks, like beer and cider. It is not clear what exactly the tasks were of this man. It is not known whether the local population of the area where the craftsman worked was mandated to use his services. Likely [at that time] everyone was free to choose whether or not to brew beer at home with their own household goods and ingredients.

This seems to have changed during the following centuries. The landowner took the right to produce and supply an ingredient (excipient) needed for the production of beer: the gruit. Of course he did not produce gruit personally and therefore the capacity to hire or fire a person for this task was also part of gruitrecht. The earliest mention of gruitrecht dates from 999. In that year Emperor Otto III, also country governor of the current Netherlands, gifted villa de Bommel with all rights to the church of Saint Maarten in Utrecht. Included in the gifted royal rights were ‘the toll, the coin, and the whole commerce of brewed beer, commonly called gruit’. Practically, gruitrecht was a forced sales tax. The production of your own gruit to make your own beer was forbidden. Gruit had to be bought and the income went to the king. In this way, a tax was levied on the brewing of beer through the sales of gruit.

Central law in the Carolingian empire collapsed in the centuries following the death of Charlemagne. This opened up opportunities for local government officials. Most often the counts functioned as the royal lawkeepers and had the right to implement royal (public) authority. But the counts and later the bishops misused the weak position of the king. He thus felt necessary to lease or gift away many of his royal rights. In later times the counts and bishops managed to elevate gruitrecht, and later also coin- and export tax, to a hereditary monopoly and to spread this throughout their territory.

In the 13^th century many city accounts mention gruitrecht. On average these mentions indicate the first time the local noble as owner of the right, leased this right including its income, often to a city. It happened on a regular base a noble suddenly needed a large amount of cash for his expenses. Then, for instance, he would borrow this amount for a certain period from a city. During this period he paid off the loan in terms. In exchange for the borrowed amount, the city received gruitrecht and all its related income as collateral. When the landowner paid off the loan the city had to return the gruitrecht. Therefore city-leased gruitrecht was not the start of local gruitrecht. That already existed long before. But from the moment gruitrecht became available to local governments, sources regarding gruit become readily available to us.

Financial problems often resulted in not being able to pay off the loan, and several nobles had to extend the lease. This is probably what happened in Zwolle. An ordinance known from 1341 had the city officials of Zwolle pay their governor, the bishop of Utrecht, for gruit, among other things. In 1404 the bishop at that time, Frederik van Blankenheim, gave the gruitrecht to the city in leasehold. This ordinance mentions several interesting unusual things. The bishop complains about the ‘hoppenbyer, dat men gemeenlike dryncket in onsen lande, daer onse gruyten (…) seer mede afgegaen, en de vernyelt syn’ [hopped beer, which is so commonly drunk in our area, that our gruit (…) so much went down, and has been broken]. The income from gruit had gone down significantly because of the more and more popular hopped beer. The city of Zwolle complained that the income from the sale of gruit did not cover the lease of 100 pounds per year on which the city had agreed with the bishop anymore. Previously, from a predecessor of Frederik van Blankenheim, the city received the right to not only tax brewing with gruit but also tax hopped beer.

Flavoring beer with hops instead of gruit started in the northern provinces of the Netherlands around 1320, probably in imitation of the tasteful, but by heavy taxation expensive Hamburg beer which by then was already prepared with hops. Soon gruit as a raw material was displaced, even though up until the beginning of the 15^th century gruitbeer was still produced. The excise duty on the brewing of hopped beer compensated the owner of gruitrecht for the loss of income from declining gruit sales. Because of the gradual transfer of a monopoly on the sale of a raw material to an excise duty on brewing, the meaning of gruit faded. In mostly 15^th century sources the excise duty on the brewing of hopped beer is often noted under ‘gruyt’. One even finds the term ‘hoppengruyt’, which shows people did not quite remember the origin of gruit anymore.

Most of the income and expenses of cities were booked into accounts. This was also the case with the income and expenses in regards to gruit. Especially in those areas where gruit fell into disuse relatively late, much information can be sourced from these accounts. This is especially the case in certain cities in the current provinces of Overijssel and Gelderland, like Zwolle, Deventer and Zutphen. The inhabitants of cities in North and South Holland switched over to brewing with hops fairly early (and in large numbers). Thus gruit disappeared much quicker over there. Another practical reason why we should turn to the Overijsselse and Gelderse cities is that in most cases the Hollands [the provinces, not country] city accounts have only been passed down since the 15^th century; in other words, only after the time business in gruit had long since disappeared in Holland.

20. A medieval brewery actively brewing. Illustration of a manuscript from 1462. On the left ‘beslag’ [mash] is made in the ‘beslagkuip’ [malting tub], at the right cooking in the brewing kettle is shown. City archive Kampen.

Of cruyt and zwaercruyt

What was actually in this gruit and what really happened in the gruithuis? An account from Zwolle of 1398 informs us about the composition of the substance of gruit. It mentions 32 mud herbs, 100 pounds of resin and 100 pairs of ‘heavy herbs’.  The day to day handling of gruit was in hands of the gruiters. Their accounts are included in the monthly accounts of Zwolle which saved from 1399 onwards. Apart from transfers of current inventory, we also find purchase accounts of the raw materials needed for the production of gruit. And each time these three ingredients are mentioned: ‘cruyt’, ‘zwaer cruyt’ and ‘hers’. ‘Cruyt’, as shown in the monthly accounts of 1407 and 1411 means ‘gaghelkruyt’. For the meaning of ‘zwaer cruyt’ we have to look at the administrative chambers' accounts of Deventer. A similar purchase is noted there, but in Latin: ‘duris specibus dictis serpentien et bekeler’ (thus: ‘zwaerkruyt’ called ‘serpentien’ and ‘bekeler’). Serpentien probably means ‘slangekruid’ [snakeherb], with which several plant species could be meant. Bekeler, in other sources also indicated as ‘bekelteer’, is linguistically derived from ‘bacae lauri’, or the fruits of the laurel. The third ingredient is ‘hers’, with which plain resin is meant. This unvarying combination of raw materials also formed the recipe of gruit in Deventer. In older accounts the ingredients are listed in Latin: ‘mirtus’, ‘durae species’ respectively ‘resina’, more recently it was in the vernacular, as in Zwolle.

In Zwolle, the herb gagel [bog myrtle] was purchased each time in mudden (circa 120 liters). With each transfer the resin was listed in pounds. Strangely there is no mention of a note for the purchase of resin. Still there was no shortage; the account from Zwolle of 1403 mentions with the transfer ‘die herse die gij ons overleverden ende dier is noch ghenoech’ [the resin which you transferred and which is still enough]. And lastly ‘zwaer cruyt’ is delivered in pairs. This likely has to do with the proportional distribution [50/50] of the two ingredients ‘serpentien’ and ‘bekeler’.

21. The leaves of the bog myrtle shrub were the most important ingredient of gruit. The leaves include essential oils with an intoxicating effect. Bog myrtle grows mostly in acidic, wet heather fields and bogs, and sometimes in the valleys of [coastal] dunes.

The gruiter.

Several people were employed in the combined process of the production and sales of gruit. First the gruiter. This person, whom in essence had leadership of the gruithuis, was likely at first employed by the owners of the gruit through wage labor. When in the 14^th century several governors began to lease their gruit, especially to cities, quite often the new tenant instated a new gruiter. Sometimes a lease agreement was agreed on; sometimes the gruiter was in plain wage labor. Like in 1339 when the city of Deventer leased the gruitrecht from the bishop of Utrecht and the city paid Rudolf the gruiter 24 pound as wages, ‘Rodolpho fermentario pro pretio suo’. The following year a certain Johannus was instated.

In the sources between 1382 and 1385 a certain Alfer the gruiter exists as schepen [city official] of Zwolle. It is also clear from other sources that the ‘office’ as gruiter is profitable, both financially as socially. This is also the case with Boldewin Scelewerd from Kampen who leased the gruit beween 1318 and 1324, and is mentioned in other sources as a ‘schout’ [lawman]. The gruiter likely had fluctuating work hours. The monthly accounts from Zwolle indicate that especially between February and April, and in December, extra gruit was sold. It looks like especially in those months more beer was produced. It is very probable this had to do with the fermentation process of beer. In the middle ages it was usual to use top fermenting yeast. Bottom fermentation was only possible at lower temperatures (between 5 and 10 C), thus needed winter temperatures.

22. To make beer, the grain first has to be sprouted.

 The sprouts produce enzymes which can transform starch into sugar.

Gruuthuus and the Grutere.

Gruitrecht was also royal privilege in Flanders, and reserved for the counts of Flanders. They had the right to sell gruit or gruut for the making of beer. In the 12^th century at least this right was given to important families, whom often were allowed use the title ‘gruutheer’ [gruitlord] or ‘gruter’ [gruiter]. They managed the gruithuis where the gruit was stored and ready to be collected by the consumers. When in the course of the 14^th century gruit was replaced by hops, gruitrecht developed into an excise tax. The gruithuizen were replaced by small offices and mostly disappeared during the 15^th century.

The best known example in Flanders is Brugge, where gruitrecht was leased to the family Van Brugghe, which transferred in the 14^th century by marriage to the family Van der Aa, whom also used the title ‘lord of the Gruuthuse’. The gruithuis was likely situated along the Reie, in the same place as where in the 15^th century a wing of a burgundies city palace was built. [Called] the Gruuthuse, of which today only the name remembers the previous royal right, it still forms an important historic centerpiece in downtown Brugge.

In Ghent, by way of the counts of Flanders, gruitrecht was in the hands of the family De Grutere, part of the elite city government; a group of wealthy urban residents of which the oldest mentions hail from the 13^th century. It is they who built the oldest stone city houses, knicknamed ‘stones’.

23. Remains of walls of the medieval gruithouse in Ghent are now incorporated in the new hotel complex.

Archaeological research at the Goudenleeuwplein in Ghent in 1980 and 1985 brought to light the remains of such a ‘stone’. This mostly square construction is with its measurements of 17 x 14 meters rather unusually large. Historic research points this was the gruithuis, where the family De Grutere managed the gruitrecht. In the time when gruitrecht was still a true taxation, most of the work would have been done on the first floor. In the 15^th century the upper floors were made ready for a new function, to say, the Inn ‘de Guldinen Leeu’ and her successors. A couple of walls escaped the 1980 and 1995 demolition and were integrated into a new hotel complex. – M.C. Laleman

24. During a demolition in Ghent the remains of a medieval gruithouse appeared.

In the gruithuis.

The city accounts of Deventer give much information about what actually happened in the gruit house. By 1340 there was mention of a domus fermenti (gruithuis), and a certain Swolleman was paid for work he had done on the structure called stamphuis. This seems to indicate the stamphuis is a separate unit of the gruithuis, named after the machinery present. Probably the gruiter did not do the dirty work himself. At least, in that same year there is mention of a servant who works in the stamphuis to crush the myrtle. Thereby made fine, together with other ingredients the myrtle was made into gruit. The gruit was, according to accounts from 1347 and 1348, delivered in units called ‘stampen’ [literally stomps; compacts]. By the 1405 transfer of ‘zwaer cruyt’ in Zwolle it was noted that only two more ‘stampen’ were in inventory. This indicates not only myrtle was crushed, but also ‘zwaer cruyt’. This becomes more and more likely when we read how in 1411 with the transfer the old aldermen of Zwolle note: ‘Item so levere wij u over zwar cruyt, ghestoten ende onghestoten als ‘t up den boene licht’ [Item so we deliver you heavy herbs crushed and not uncrushed as it is stored in the attic].

            Additional proof crushing was situated in the gruithuis is found in the city accounts of Zutphen. Under-rentmaster Johan Huerninx, whom during the year 1401 was accountable to the aldermen of the city, accounted that eight pounds had been paid that year for the rent of a gruetpeert [gruit horse]. The connection with gruet indicates the horse was needed for a task in combination with gruit. This is confirmed by the under-rentmaster accounts during the year 1411. Again a horse is mentioned, but this time in a more clear context. In this expense account the function of the horse is explained: ‘Vor haver ten peerde als men ‘t kruet stiet 14 schelling’ [For oats for the horse to crush the herbs]. This nota indicates that in Zuthpen a gruit horse was used for the crushing of herbs. Apparently, the gruithouse was large enough to house a rosmolen [horse powered mill]. Without question, the horse had to power the crushing mechanism in the gruithouse. We can rest assured that a similar rosmolen would also have functioned in the Deventer gruithouse.

25. Reconstruction drawing of a small Zutphen’s brewery which probably was destroyed during the city fire of May 13, 1284. After the fire and the process of carbonation, the area was raised and newly built upon. The remains remained untouched making it possible for archaeologists to precisely determine how the little building would have looked like 700 years later. The brewery measured about 3.5 by 4.5 meters and was dug down about a half meter. It had ninety degree angled corners of boards, and the sidewalls were made of posts and woven wicker. On the first floor lay pitchers, pots and in the fireplace a brewing kettle. On the collapsed attic floor were also pitchers and a large amount of oats was stored. Drawing: M. Groothedde, Zutphen.

Kettles and barrels.

The above has shown that the gruithuis and the gruiters derived their name from the work they did: the crushing of herbs used during the production of beer. Though several sources seem to indicate this might not have been the only task of the gruiters. These sources, city accounts and certificates, keep mentioning kettles and tubs as part of the inventory of the gruithuis. For instance in 1324 the Count of Holland leased his gruit (right), his gruithuis and all barrels included to the city of Dordrecht for three years, and we see he booked a post in 1344 for expenses for the benefit of the ‘gruuthuus tot Outdorp’, including a ‘gruutketel’ [gruit kettle]. Also in Zwolle the gruiter had a tub and a kettle available, that is, gruitmasters in 1401 spend an amount of 16 plak for ‘voir een vat daer men die grute inne sett’ [for een tub to place the gruit in] and an amount of 12 plak ‘voir oeren ketel daer men die grute mede sett’ [for a kettle which one uses with gruit]. The administrative chambers' accounts of Deventer note similar posts, in which a kettle and a press are mentioned. A separate account of the gruiters over the year 1340 mention a hanging apparatus for a kettle and the copper kettle to go with it, plus eight mud grain, a boat load peat and a ‘scepel’ (measuring coop). In Zutphen the gruitmasters of 1395 received for ‘enen olden ketel die vercoft werd 9 pond en 19 schelling’ [for an old kettle which was sold]. The gruit accounts of 1411/1412 mention eight barrels which made 316 pounds when sold. The barrels likely contained gruit, as the total income for gruit of that year was 335 pounds. The 19 pound difference was for malt brought to the gruithouse.

           

26. The monthly accounts of Zwolle indicate the gruitmasters sold a large amount of gruit between 1399 and 1407 especially in February, March and April. December also shows a spike. Beer one wanted to keep was brewed in fall and in early spring. Beer brewed in the months May until October kept significantly less long.

27. Just outside of Venlo is situated the so named Groethof, also called the Spyker [the Nail]. In the 13^th century and the first half of the 14^th century the gruit of Venlo was in hands of first Margaretha van Vlaanderen and later the duke of Gelre. Not until 1379 did the city of Venlo receive the gruit. The city had no use for a gruithouse outside of the city walls. After the Groethof lost its function as a gruithouse, it functioned as a domicile. It was demolished just after 1950. Cityarchive, Venlo.

In older accounts from Zutphen we read about malt which was brought to the gruithuis. In 1395 the 88.5 mulder malt brought to the gruithuis made 120 pounds. This practice is also found outside of Zutphen. In 1324, for instance, the count of Holland ordered each brewer of the city of Dordrecht to give, for each ‘hoed’ malt (1 hoed is circa 1000 liter) he wanted to brew, 16 Hollandse pennings to the gruiter ‘en syn mout dat dairtoe behoort ende dair binnen zal him die gruter sine grute gheven’ [and his malt which belongs to it, and inside [the building?] he shall be given the gruit by the gruiter]. Not only was malt (occasionally?) brought to the gruithuis, the gruiters also purchased, on their own account, grain which they then made into malt. In Zutphen the gruiters spent 32 pounds for oats to make into malt, and for the horse. The same happened in the years 1406/1407, 1407/1408 and 1411/1412. We should remember here that in the Middle Ages oats were the grain beer was brewed with. The gruiter in Deventer purchased his grain already malted. A post is noted for malt (bracium) in the account of 1340 and also the account of 1344.

            What was the purchased malt or the making of malt by gruiters for and why did brewers bring their malt to the gruithuis? It seems likely the malt underwent another procedure. The malted grain kernels first have to be coarsely ground, called ‘schroten’. Only this way can the starch in the kernels combined with water be made into a mash. Because the gruithuis had a grinder, powered by a horse mill, it should not be surprising that this apparatus was also used for other grinding jobs. Therefore it should not be excluded that in the course of time the word gruit not only meant the grinding / pounding of herbs, but also the coarsely ground malt. After the Middle Ages the grinding of grain became almost synonymous with the ‘grutten’ business, although at that time the grain used most often was buckwheat. The ‘grutterij’, which by then always used a horse powered mill, is by all accounts a direct descendant of the medieval gruit business.

The accounts of Zutphen show no hard evidence for the statement that the gruetpeert [gruit horse] was also used for the grinding of grain, even though it seems plausible. Unambiguous evidence that at least the gruithuis of Deventer ground their malt is found in the accounts of 1345. In the expenses of the gruiters is an expense post ‘for the miller for the milling of grain in the gruithouse during one year’. Therefore we can expect in the gruithuizen of other cities a similar course of action, indicated by the similarities of the according to the sources present utensils & utilities.

            What was the function of the kettles and the tubs in the gruithuis? It is possible the kettles were used for the measurement of the amounts of gruit per ‘stampe’ [a unit] and that the tubs were used for the storage of the ‘stampen’. As mentioned before, the gruitmasters of Zwolle spent an amount of 16 plak ‘voir een cat daer men die grute inne sett’ [for a tub to place the gruit in] and an amount of 12 plak ‘voir oeren ketel dar men die grute mede sett’ [for a kettle with which the gruit is set with]. One needed tub and kettle to be able to determine (sett) at delivery the right amounts of gruit. On the other hand one could interpret ‘sett’ also as to make, in the current meaning of ‘zetten’ (as in making coffee ‘koffie zetten’). When this interpretation is used the procedures in the gruithuis  show an extra dimension [become even more interesting / intricate].

28. [L] That the gruitright was an important right is shown in part by the handsome city domicile of Lodewijk van Gruuthuse in Brugge, of which this is the monumental entrance. His predecessors received the gruit right around the year 1200 and named themselves after the right. Lodewijk van Gruuthuse became a powerful and rich man in part because of this right, and was employed for diplomatic service by the Duke of Burgundy.

29. [R] May 2^nd, 1461 Lodewijk van Gruuthuse was elected into the Order of the Gulden Vlies [Order of the Golden Membrane] as a reward for his diplomatic services. This is a very special reward when one realizes that for instance the king of France and the duke of Burgundy were also members of this knightly order. Above the meeting room seats hung each member’s heraldic device. This is the device of Lodwijk van Gruuthuse. Saint Salvatorschurch, Brugge.

The administrative chambers' accounts of Deventer offer even more information on gruit. At the end of April, 1339, the city received the lease on gruitrecht from the Bishop of Utrecht. In 1340 for the facilities of a gruithuis, raw materials, tools and work clothes were bought on a large scale. The previously mentioned copper kettle and hanging apparatus were bought, and malt, peat and firewood. At the same time two new posts appeared at the income side of the accounts: those for ‘medulla brasii’ and ‘soppa fermenti’. ‘Medulla brasii’ means as much as the ‘core of the malt’ and ‘soppa fermenti’ is also mentioned in the accounts as ‘gruetsoppe’. This information points to something being brewed in Deventer. The ‘gruetketel’ points to this, as does the purchase of peat and firewood as fuel. The strongest clue actually is ‘gruetsoppe’. From this word can be derived a liquid was made, because in medieval Dutch the word ‘soppe’ has the meaning of ‘liquid food’.

30. A house from the 12^th century was found in Delft at the Heilige Geest Kerkhof [Holy Ghost Cemetery]. The side walls were made of woven wicker and clay [daub], the front façade consisted of wooden boards. Several hearths were found in the [collapsed] house right above each other including many charcoaled grain kernels. The composition (mostly oats and no rye) indicates the brewing of beer.

The Deventer accounts show during each of the nine years (1340-1348) malt was produced and delivered. Malt is made by soaking coarsely ground grain in warm water. The inside of the grain kernel dissolves into the warm water, after which the mush was filtered. This filtered ‘mash’ is called ‘wort’. In the Deventer accounts this liquid was indicated with the Latin term ‘medulla brasii’. The separated wet mush was called ‘gruetsoppe’. Probably this is synonymous with what modern brewers call 'spent grains'. That no beer was brewed can be inferred from the fact that the word ‘cervisia’ (the Latin word for beer) does not show up anywhere in the accounts. The indicated ‘medulla’ therefore could be nothing else than a half product of beer. It is tempting to assign the making (setten) of wort to all the gruithouses in possession of a kettle and tubs. But without more indications one should not do so. In Deventer the accounts only show detailed posts during a nine year period. In later years the gruit accounts are not specified anymore and only the income of gruit is accounted for. While the making of wort is not clearly a part of the production in the gruithouse, it probably is more likely in the case of grinding the malt. The accounts do indicate that apart from herbs the gruithouse (stamphus) also ground malt for the production of beer.

14-15th century soap recipes from The Crafte of Lymming and the Maner of Steyning, O.S. 347, part 3.

The Crafte of Lymming and the Maner of Steyning. O.S. 347.

Middle English Recipes for Painters, Stainers, Scribes and Illuminators. Edited by Mark Clarke. The Early English Text Society, published by the Oxford University Press, 2016.

© Translations by Susan Verberg, 2017

S7 London, British Library, MS Sloane 73 [#1700]

Part III. Individual Manuscripts; BL Sloane 73 (p. 204, 205, 206)

[Remainders of Text C, the majority edited with The Trinity Encyclopedist, p. 3.; blogged previously]

[§C1] Blak sope schal be maad of capital and of oyle togidre. ‘Capital’ is a lye: yt is maad of the axes of been halm {eÞer of wod ashen} and vnsleckid lym, but Þe axis schule be double to Þe lyme, and it schal be maad in the maner of lie, but after Þat it haÞ Þe strengÞe of Þe Þrift of Þe firste axen Þat Þou heldist it on: Þu schalt hilde it on newe axen til [it] be wel maad. It mot be cleer as lye, and so strong and Þicke Þat it wole bere an ey Þat it synke not to Þe ground. And Þanne put Þe clere lye in a vessel wel closid to Þe morwe… [Thereafter as T §58, to f.196^v]

[§C1] Black soap shall be made of capital and of oil together. ‘Capital’ is a lye: it is made of the ashes of [bean stalks] {or of wood ashes} and unslaked lime, but the ashes should be double to the lime, and it shall be made in the manner of lye, but after that it has the strength of the leach of the first ashes that you hold [pour] it on: you shall hold it on new ashes until it is well made. It must be clear as lye, and so strong and thick that it will bear an egg that it sink not to the ground. And then put the clear lye in a vessel well closed to the [next] morning… [Thereafter as Trinity §58, to f.196^v]

[§C2] {White Sope} Forto maken and forto turne blak sope into whit [=T §59]

[§C2] {White soap} To make and turn black soap into white [=Trinity §59]

[§C11] {Blak Sope} Here is anoÞer ressert of blac sope. Tak one buschel of wood ayhsis, and .j. bu[sh]el of lym vnquent, and .ij. buschelis of comun aschis, and medle hem wel togidere; Þanne tak .iij. or .iiij. or .v. or .vj. tubbes maad of half barelis ‘or’ of half tunnys, after Þat Þi werk is more or lesse, and set euery vessel by oÞer, and make a hool in euery vessel botme, and leye in euery vessel a quantite of straw; Þanne departe Þi forseide aysthis and put into euery vessel ylyche myche, Þanne tak water and put into euery vessel so Þat Þe aisches be wete Þorwh, and se Þat a litil of Þe water come Þorwhout, and serue so euery vessel, Þanne tak what water Þu wilt and put to Þi firste vessel what quantite Þu wilt after that Þu hast of ayschis, and let renne Þorwhout, and so Þorwhe Þe secunde, and so Þorwhe alle into Þe tyme Þat Þou leye a wollen cloÞ in Þi lye and it dissolue Þerynne, and Þat is Þe assay; Þanne tak a vessel wiÞ a deep botme, a panne or a furneys as Þe nediÞ, more or lesse after Þat Þi werk is, and put yn .iiij. galous of lye and a galoun of oyle de olyue, and raÞir Cyuyle Þan ony oÞer, and raÞur Þe groundis of tunys Þan clere oyle, and seÞ hem wiÞ strong fyer, and stere it wel among, and so contynue it to it wexe Þikke and blak, and Þis is Þe assay: tak a sklice and tak vp awey, and leye it vpon a cold ston, and whanne it is Þikke and blak ynowh, sette it fro Þe fyer, and put it in a barell or yn anoÞer vessel swich as Þu wilt.

[§C11] {Black Soap} Here is another recipe for black soap. Take one bushel of wood ashes and 1 bushel of unquenched lime, and 2 bushels of common ashes, and mix them well together, then take 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 tubs made of half barrels or of half tuns, after that the work is more or less [occasional], and set every vessel by the other [could also mean on top of each other], and make a hole in every bottom, and lay in every vessel a quantity of straw; then take the previously mentioned ashes and put into every vessel [the same], then take water and put into each vessel what quantity you want as that you have of ashes, and let it run throughout, and so through the second, and so through all until the time you lay a woolen cloth in the lye and it dissolves therein, and that is the assay; Then take a vessel with a deep bottom, a pan or a furnace as is needed, more or less after that your work is, and put in 4 gallons of lye and one gallon of oil of olive, and [???], and [?] the grounds of [?] then clear oil [???], and cook [simmer] it with strong fire, and stir it well together, and so continue this until it becomes thick and black, and this is the assay [test]: take a slice, take it up away, and lay it on a cold stone, and when it is thick and black enough [it does not slide down and pool], set it off the fire, and put it in a barrel or in another vessel as such as you want.

[§C12] {Whit sope} Tak twey bushell of wood ayschis, and a buschel of lyme, and Þre buschelis of comun ayschis so Þat be no ayschis of ook Þerynne, and brenn Þi comun aysches twyes, and make a leye in Þe same wyse as Y reherside bifore, and put it in a vessel wiÞ a flat botme, and in .ij. galouns of Þat lye put .iiij. li. of talowhe, what talowhe euer it be, and euer as it seÞiÞ put Þerto more of lye, into Þe tyme Þat o galoun be put yn [.vi. tymes], and loke it be wel ysterid among, and tak vp Þerof alwey to it be swich as Þu wilt haue, and contynue Þe fire wel and Þu schalt not faile.

[§C12] {White soap} Take two bushels of wood ashes, and a bushel of lime, and three bushels of common ashes so that there be no ashes of oak therein, and burn [I think he meant slake] the common ashes twice, and make a lye in the same manner as [is said on the reverse] before, and put it in a vessel with a flat bottom, and in 2 gallons of this lye put in 4 liters of tallow, what ever [kind of] tallow it might be, and ever as it cooks [simmer] put thereto more of the lye, until the time a gallon is put into it (6 times), and look it be well stirred around, and take up thereof [when it gets thick?] as you would have, and continue the fire well and you shall not fail.

D Cambridge, University Library, MS Dd.v.76 [#0379]

Part III, Smaller Collections (p. 222)

[§25] To make Spaynes sope wirke it Þus. Take a li. of gode blake sope, and a quarteron of whete flour pūred, and a quarteron of small salte, and temper Þam all togeder with cleyn water, and crusse Þam well togeder with Þi handes, and Þan put it in a forme made for it, and late it drye vp on a kake, and when it es nowther full drie no ful wett set Þeron Þi marke, and late it dru vp Þan at all Þe fulle agauyne Þe wynde and noght agayne sonne.

[§25] To make Spanish soap work it thus. Take a liter of good black soap, and a quarter of wheat flour sieved, and a quarter of small salt, and temper them all together with clean water, and crush them well together with your hands, and then put it in a form made for it, and let it dry up into a cake, and when it is not yet fully dry nor fully wet set thereupon your mark, and let it dry up then expose fully to the wind and not in the sun.

London, British Library, MS Sloane 963 [#1845]

Part III, Smaller Collections (p. 244)

[§BI] Forto make Frensche sope. Take vnqueynt lym and make powder therof, and bene assches, and medele all these togedyr, sumdel more of the bene assches than of the lym, and putte alle thses togedyr in oylle that ys old, and lete hit boylle togeder tyl that hit be thykke. And Þanne put hit in cofyns and hit ys thanne jmaad.

[§BI] For to make French soap. Take unquenched lime and make it into a powder, and bean ashes, and mix all these together, somewhat more of the bean ashes than of the lime, and put all these together in oil which is old, and let it boil together until it is thick. Then put it in molds and it is then made.

[§B2] Forto make whyt sope. Take bene assches, and nyȝ as moche of vnquent lym, and make thereof fyn lye; and of that lye take a galoun and to that galoun take o pynte of water that lym ys slekked in, and putte hyt togedyr, and put therto .iiij. li. of fyn puryd schepys talowgh, and late hit boylle tyl hit be ryȝt thykke, and thanne cofyn hyt, and Þanne hit ys maad.

[§B2] For to make white soap. Take bean ashes, and not as much of unquenched lime, and make thereof a fine lye; and of that lye take a gallon and to that gallon take a pint of water that the lime was slaked in, and put this together, and put thereto 4 liters of fine pure [or putrid] sheep tallow, and let it boil until it is right thick, and then mold it, and then it is made.

Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Ashmole 750 [#2330]

Part III, Smaller Collections (p. 250)

[§A1] Forto mak whyte sope. Tak stondyng water, and askys of bene straw, and temper hem in a vessel, and set hem over the fyre and let hym bole wel togedre; a Þan put to hem a procion of vnsleccyd lyme, and bole hem wel togedre to Þat le wyl bere a ney, Þan tak doune thy panne and clens clene that lee Þrough a clothe; an put of that lee 3 potels in a panne, and do Þarto a povnd of clene moltyn talow, and bole hem wel togedre til it wex sumdel thyk. And Þan put Þerto a quarton of smal salte, and bole it til it wex wele thyke. Set it Þan downe and let it kele, and whan it is colde tak a sclyse and aforou Þroughoute thy mater in the panne, and poure out Þi blak water clene, than set it aȝeyn ouer the fyre and let it bole, and put Þerto a quartoun of bene askys temprid with colde lee as afore, and bole al togedre til it be thyk, and annone put it Þen fast into formes made like cofyns, and let it stond and kele to it be hard.

[§A1] For to make white soap. Take standing water, and ashes of bean straw, and temper it in a vessel, and set it over the fire and let it boil well together; and then put to it a portion of unslaked lime, and boil it wel together to that [it will bear an egg?], then take down your pan and clense clean the lye through a cloth; and put of that lye 3 potels [half a gallon] in a pan, and do thereto a quart of small salt [broken in small pieces], and boil it until it becomes well thick. Set it then down and let it cool, and when it is cold take a whisk and mix throughout the matter in the pan, and pour out the black water cleanly, then set it again over the fire and let it boil, and put thereto a quart of bean ashes tempered with cold lye as before, and boil it all together until it is thick, and at once put it then fast into formes made like coffins [molds] and let it stand and cool until it is hard.

[§A2] Forto mak whyte sope. Tak .iij. partes of lyme, and ‘two of’ askys of asche tree, and styr hem well, and powre oute the water, and sethe hem well togedre, and than streyne ‘Þi le’ thorow a clothe, and set it apon the feer and sethe we[ll] to the tyme will strik of a feder fro the pen; than tak .j. pownd of talow to euery galon of lee, and let it sethe well to it wexe thyk, and Þan put in salt .iij. or .iiij. hanful, and let it seythe a qwyle, and tak it doune.

[§A2] For to make white soap. Take 3 parts of lime, and two of ashes of the ash tree, and stir it well, and pour out the water, and cook [simmer] it well together, and then strain the lye through a cloth, and set it upon the fire and cook well until the time it will strike off the feather from the pen [dissolve the feather; makes it crumbly]; then take 1 pound of tallow to every gallon of lye, and let it cook [simmer] well until it becomes thick, and then put in salt 3 or 4 handfuls, and let it cook [simmer] a while, and take it down.

Brewery History : Two Articles on Gruit.

Please read both articles after reading my translation of Hans Ebbing, on which these articles are based. He, on his part, often worked from Doorman, of which my translation of the two pertinent chapters on gruit are also available here. The idea being that now you can draw your own conclusions, without having to rely on second hand interpretations, available in English.

http://bookeofsecretes.blogspot.com/2017/08/chapter-iv-substance-gruit.html
http://bookeofsecretes.blogspot.com/2017/09/chapter-v-in-gruithouse.html
http://bookeofsecretes.blogspot.com/2017/09/hans-ebbing-gruytgeld-ende-hoppenbier.html


A NOTE ON THE ESSENCE OF GRUIT
FREDERIK RUIS

The Journal is © 2016
The Brewery History Society
Brewery History (2016) 166, 50-53

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B00exGjh0TuUa1pXR1R1bEY5Z0U/view?usp=sharing


FURTHER NOTES ON THE ESSENCE OF GRUIT: AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW
ROEL MULDER

The Journal is © 2017
The Brewery History Society
Brewery History (2017) 169, 73-76

http://verlorenbieren.nl/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Roel-Mulder-Further-notes-on-the-essence-of-gruit-Brewery-History.pdf

Hans Ebbing 'Gruytgeld ende Hoppenbier' - Chapter II The Substance of Gruit

Hans Ebbing 'Gruytgeld ende Hoppenbier' [Gruitmoney and Hopped Beer]
Research into the composition of gruit and the rise of the Dutch Beer Brewery between 1000-1500.
Doctoral Thesis, University of Amsterdam, 1994
Translated by (c) Susan Verberg, 2017

Chapter II. Gruit and Gruitrights. [page 17-31]

The Substance of Gruit.
There has been disagreement not only about the gruitrecht (early taxation), but also about the substance of gruit. That is to say, until in 1955 Doorman came to the convincing conclusion in his thesis gruit was a composite of a collection of dried herbs. 62 Since then literature took over this point of view. Before, the general thought was gruit could have consisted of several things. Mattheus for instance concluded in 1783 that it was wetted malt. Van der Wall thought in 1790 of yeast and Ackerdijck in 1824 of a certain type of herb. Nanninga Uitterdijck was in 1883 keeping it at groats and barley. 63 Doorman came to his conclusion on the basis of the administrative chambers accounts of Deventer. Since 1339 these city accounts noted the income from gruitrecht, because just before the city had received this right for a year in lease from the bishop Johan van Diest for a payment of 100 penningen. 64 From 1340 to 1348 the income and expenses for the gruit business were noted in detail, while after that time only the total income is accounted for, and no the gruit business expenses. 65
    De confusion around the essence of the substance of gruit happened because of the Latin synonym for gruit: fermentum. In classic Latin this means as much as yeast, or that which causes fermentation. Although everyone who thought of yeast or fermentation thought wrong, according to Doorman. The connection between yeast and fermentum is not that obvious. In the middle ages, fermentum had a much broader meaning, as indicated by the definition of the Spanish alchemist Arnoldo de Villa Nova (died 1313). He described it as such: 'Fermentum transmutat in sua naturam' (a ferment transforms one substance into another). This was a widely accepted perception which lead to the Philosopher's Stone being called a ferment. 66 Also the transformation which happens when malt is added to unmalted grain and thereby during brewing changes the whole into fermentable sugars was seen as a manifestation of this process. Therefore, said Doorman, fermentum should be understood in its general sense and not in the sense of yeast or that which causes fermentation. One meant the general business of brewing, where many not-understood processes would happen. 67
    Gruit could not have caused fermentation for a second reason, and that was because the substance was added before the brewing of the malt. This concluded Doorman from a Dordrecht ordinance of May 16, 1322. 68 It describes that every brewer in Dordrecht of every hoed malt which he wants to brew had to pay 16 pennings Hollands 'ende sijn mout dat dair toe behoirt ende dair binnen zal him die grueter sine grute gheven als hij tote noch gedaen hevet ende wairt dats him die gruter niet gheloven en wilde hij en hadde meer ghebrouwen dan hi him anebrochte dat soude die gruter up him houden mit sinen ede...'. [something like; and his malt which belongs thereto and there inside shall the gruiter give him his gruit, if he has not done this and would it be that the gruiter does not believe him and had he brewed more than he indicated / showed then the gruiter shall keep him to his oath] 69 The gruit was added during the showing of the malt, according to Doorman, to make the analysis of the gruit more difficult. De Vries whom also worked on this ordinance but in connection with the by him assumed obligation to submit, could not make out gruit was added right on the spot. He thought the brewer brought his gruit back home to divide the gruit as he wished over the amounts of malt indicated to be brewed.
    From the wording of the ordinance one could indeed not deduce that gruit was added to the malt, as Doorman wants. It literally indicates gruit was given along. The ordinance could indicate that the brewer had to come and show the malt destined for brewing at the gruithuis. If the gruiter did not trust him and thought he was keeping grain behind, he could order him to take an oath to swear that was not the case. It is likely the brewer did not only bring his malt just to show. Probably he did so to have it undergo another process.
    At closer inspection Doorman's second argument is not defensible. That is also the case with his first argument. He indicates earlier that he proved the word fermentum meant the business of brewing in general and not a substance to promote fermentation. The deed of 999 pleads this argument, in which the right of gruit was called 'the total commerce in fermented beer.' Maybe in this certificate one could also interpret the word fermentatae as brewed, thus 'the whole commerce in brewed beer.' But the noun fermentum indicates a substance which is (not yet?) beer, because [later] the word cervisia is used for beer. Fermentum means gruit and not also the business of brewing. Therefore one could derive from the deed 'the whole commerce in gruit beer.' And that fermentum could also mean 'that which causes fermentation' indicated Doorman sort of himself. A ferment is a substance which transforms the nature of another. He gives as an example malt which, when added to unmalted grain, transforms the grain during brewing into fermentable substances included in malt. From the described effect of malt, which transforms the nature of another substance, one could also deduce that it could mean a ferment, and even something which 'causes fermentation.'
    Doormans' rejection of all those before him whom understood fermentum as a fementation causing substance appears to rest on weak arguments. He did not have to do overly much, as the administrative chamber accounts had already demonstrated that the substance of gruit consisted of dried herbs. It is time for a closer inspection of these city accounts from which Doormans gathered his proof. According to Doorman, for the determination of the ingredients of the gruit substance the account of 1339 is the most important, because at that time a 'pure gruit business' was still active. 70 The gruit accounts, drawn up in Latin like the other accounts, consists of income of units of gruit. 71 At the expense side are posts for the purchase of mirtus, durae species and resina. 72 Doorman was able to identify the herbs as bog myrtle, 'serpentien' and laurel berries (durae species), of which the last two consisted of a mixed ingredient for the gruit. 73 Resina is nothing other than resin. Also purchases of these herbs are accounted in the following accounts for up until 1348. At the end of 1339 the old aldermen turned the inventory of the gruithuis over to the new aldermen. The transferred goods consisted of bog myrtle, zwaar kruid [heavy herbs] and resin. 74 Immediately after the transfer of the right to gruit they started the construction of a new gruithuis. In the expenditure for city buildings (ad structuram civitatis) there is mention of cement for the build of the gruithuis (the domus fermenti). 75
    It is possible that the bishop already had a gruithuis in the city which served as a distribution point for the gruit in Deventer. But that gruit was already made there seems unlikely because of the expenses for the benefit of the build and furnishings of the gruithuis in 1339 and 1340. In that last year lattice, roofing tiles and lead (maybe for rainpipes or water conduits) was purchased for the construction of the gruithuis and a certain Swolleman was paid for work he did on a 'stamphus'. 76 For the furnishings a suspension for a kettle was purchased, and also a copper kettle, a wash basin, a tub, shoes, boots and clothing. 77 And again ingredients were bought and a certain amount of firewood. 78 All these purchases were meant for something specific; preparations were underway to make something.
    In 1340 Deventer started with the offering and delivering of wort. That's what the kettle, tub and firewood were meant for, according to Doorman. This service was organized by the city to centrally offer wort to certain small businesses, as in this way they did not need their own kettle nor stoke a fire. Wort delivery would not amount to big competition with the gruit customers, while a beer brewery in the gruithuis could be just that. 79 But here Doorman forgets that wort is a semi-finished product which first needs to be boiled to ferment into beer. Therefore the smaller businesses would most definitely have had access to a kettle and fuel. The income and expenses for the production of wort are dealt with separately in the account. At the beginning of the account is the term medulla bracci which means as much as 'the kernel of the malt'. 80 The posts include purchases of malt, a boat load of peat, wood and (filter)bags and a tripod with a sort of reservoir, of which the function escapes me. 81
    Doorman wanted to indicate that the production of wort was just a side product of the gruit business. Because it was included in a separate account and as such had nothing to do with gruit (fermentum). 82 Gruit consisted out of an amount of herbs which were traded in a dried state. Yet from a post in the accounts of 1344 is clear that the two manufacturing processes were not as separated as Doorman suggests. With the expenses in the gruit account (de fermento) is noted that malt and firewood were bought for the gruit (ad fermentum). 83 And even more malt was purchased which, just like the purchase of heavy herbs, resin and peat, was noted in the gruit accounts. 84
    Last but not least, the accounts of 1345 and 1347 include another couple of posts which increase the confusion around the nature of the gruit business even further. For instance in 1345 the income for medulla brasii is a small amount noted for the sale of feces fermenti which in Middle Dutch is called gruetsoppe. 85 Also the gruiters bought 57 mud barley to make into malt and paid the miller twelve schellingen to be able to mill their malt in the gruithuis. 86 In 1347 income again is noted from gruetsoppe, this time appearing in the account as soppa fermenti. In that year the miller was paid again for the milling of malt. Next to the normal expenses for malt and herbs, the gruiters also ordered a new kettle and the servant made an oven for this large kettle. In this year Herbord van Rechtem noted the city income and expenses. He received from Johan Groeten and Johan Vryeherten six marks 'de grute dimissa in stampa', 'for gruit which they send to the stamphus' (or more likely, 'for gruit which they sold in the stamphus'). 87
    How should all this different information from the administrative chamber accounts be interpreted? The accounts seem to present the impression of great activity in the gruithuis, which certainly does not seem to be only a place of storage and the sale of herbs. But then what did happen? In the account of 1340 is mention of work on a house which was called stamphuis [flatten-house] and of a servant who did crushing work inside. 88 This seems to indicate that the stamphuis is part of the gruit business and was probably in or near the gruithuis. This suspicion is confirmed in the account of 1345 when city official Herbord van Rechten received from the gruiters Johan Wernersz. en Reynier four mark which they in their turn had received from the stamphuis which was located in the gruithuis. 89 Therefore in the gruithuis was a stamp installation which was operated by a servant to crush the gruit.
    Doorman did not think of an equality between stamphuis and gruithuis, he probably saw them as to separate buildings with each a different function. 90 Additional proof that in the gruithuis crush work (milling) was done is to be found in the city accounts of Zutphen. The account of under-rentmaster Johan Huerninx showed that for that year eight pounds was paid for the rental of a gruetpeert [gruit horse]. 91 This expense post suggests that the horse was needed to do a special process. This is confirmed in the under-rentmaster account of the year 1411. Again a horse is noted, but this time in a more clear context: 'Vor haver ten peerde als men 't kruet stiet 14 schelling.' [For barley for the horse to crush the herbs] 92 Crush work was done in the gruithuis with the help of a horse. Apparently, the Zutphens gruithuis was large enough to harbor a 'rosmolen' [horse (or a ros) powered mill]. It is probable this was also the case in Deventer.
    This post also immediately clarifies what is crushed: the herbs! Van Vilsteren had already come to this conclusion on the basis of the Zwolle monthly accounts. At the inventory transfer in 1411 the old aldermen transferred to the new aldermen 'ghestoten ende onghestoten als 't up den boene licht' [crushed and uncrushed as it lays in the attic]. 93 Thereby part of the activity in the gruithuis is explained. As the same work was conducted in Zwolle and Zutphen it could be inferred that this was a part of the work in all gruithuizen. The herbs were collected in the gruithuizen to receive further treatment. Maybe it is possible to make the verb gruten synonym with grinding or crushing. In the same year of 1411 did the old aldermen not only transfer crushed and uncrushed heavy herbs to the new aldermen, they also transferred 'alsoe vele gaghelkrudes dair gij een yaer ende langer ghenoech an te vergruten hebben' [also many gagel herbs of which a year or longer you have enough to crush]. 94 If vergruten is interpreted as crushing or grinding (modern Dutch vergruizen!) then this note from the old aldermen becomes meaningful. The etymological explanation of the word gruit also points to the direction of coarsly ground or crushed.
    The Etymologisch Woordenbook [Etymological Dictionary] (1971) refers gruit to the word gort [groats]. Also grut refers back to gort. 95 Gort refers to several different forms (old and new) in the Germanic languages. The germanic base is grutja, derived from gruta. The Indo-Germanic root is ghreu 'rubbed broken', derived from gher 'pebble sand'. The basic meaning is 'that which is finely crushed', and that does not only mean 'pebble' or 'sand' but also 'grain kernels', which would be coarsely ground before the making of porridge. 96 The Woordenboek der Nederlandse Taal [Dictionary of the Dutch Language] (1900) describes gruit as follows: 'the basis or main meaning of this word (a collective) can not be anything else, than: a collection of granular, crumbly components; out of kernel-y, granular, crumbly parts existing substance, especially applicable for granular, shattered, coarsely ground grains or about a granular gruel or porridge.' 97 At grut is noted: 'Related to grut are gruit and griet. On average the most originally [historic] meaning. Crumbly or shattered, gravel [dutch word for gravel is gruis] of one substance or another, or a certain substance (or mixture of substances) in a finely crumbled or shattered state.' 98

Kettles and barrels.
    Doorman was right, herbs were sold in the gruithuis. What he did not know is that they would also be crushed and that the crushing mechanism was in or near the gruithuis, which does not diminish his findings at all. Except the administrative chamber accounts and several other sources point towards the crushing of herbs not being the only function of the gruithuis. In the account of the year 1395/96 the gruiters of Zutphen noted the following post: 'ontfangen van enen olden ketel die vercoft wet 9 pond 19 schelling' [received from the sale of one old kettle]. 99 The accounts of the under-rentmaster of 1406 and 1411 make accountable the sale of respectively seven and eight barrels (at least, the contents of such) for the high sum of 346 and 316 pounds. Also in Dordrecht Willem III leased in 1324 his gruithuis and the barrels which belonged to it to the city. 101 The gruithuis of the earl in Ouddorp underwent a thorough refurbishment. From the posts in this account rises the image of a wooden house with a straw roof. Apparently not only repairs were needed for the house, also part of the inventory had to be replaced. Dieric the kettle maker received the order to make a gruetketel [gruit kettle]. 102 In Dordrecht the earl Willem III leased in 1322 his gruitrecht and gruithuis with all the tools (or kitchen utensils) to two burghers from Dordrecht. 103 And at last, it appears from the  administrative chamber accounts that the gruithuis in Deventer also featured a kettle and an oven.
    Other activity in the Deventer gruithuis consisted of the purchase and processing of substantial amounts of malt, of which wort is made. The Zutphens' accounts also show of other activities in the gruithuis. In 1395/96, 120 pounds were received for 88.5 molder wort which was brought to the gruithuis, and in 1406 the gruithuis expended 12 pounds 'vor 17 molder haveren daer molte afgemaect wort' [for 17 molder oats of which malt is made]. 104 The grains were bought and processed on the gruiters own account. In 1397/98 the gruit masters earned 71 pounds from 54 mud malt. 105 The account of the under-rentmaster of 1409 shows that the people could come to the gruithuis for services. Probably people had the malt undergo some sort of process: 'ontfangen van den molte dat aver jaer in 't gruethuis comen is' [received of the malt which came within the year to the gruithuis]. 106
    Before the malt is useful it needs to be crushed to release the starch, and it can be made into wort. The administrative chamber accounts of 1345 and 1347 showed that already in those years a miller milled malt in the gruithuis. Why this was done at that time by a miller is not known. But because the gruithuis housed a crusher, powered by a mill [rosmolen] it should not be a surprise this apparatus was also sometimes used for other milling projects. The etymological explanation also pointed towards the crushing or coarse grinding of kernels of grain. Because of the similar utensils in the diverse gruithuizen, we can expect also in other cities a similar way of processing.
    In Deventer a medulla brasii was made of the ground malt. Very likely a certain amount of malt together with water was heated in a kettle until the active ingredients of the malt was leached out of the kernel. This filtrate or residue [the solids, or spent grains] of the medulla, the soppa fermenti or gruetsoppe, would be sold for a small amount. 107 And now something happens which can be easily read right past. Both the Latin as the Middle Dutch term points towards the manufacturing of a liquid. This fact by itself is not that special, because it is already noted that wort is produced. But the soppa or soppe is the residue of a substance which is called gruit or fermentum. This means wort and gruit can be seen as identical. This opens up a whole new discussion about the nature of gruit. After all, if wort can be called gruit then maybe the making of wort is not as novel or a side business. It is even possible the manufacturing of this substance was the main part of the activities. To illustrate the supposed equality between gruit and wort I point to the earlier named post in the account of 1344, when the gruiter bought malt and wood for the gruit (ad fermentum). 108 It also does call up the important question if the old sources also meant this liquid instead of dried herbs. Apart from a spatial dimension the problem of gruit now also receives a dimension of time.
    Doorman supposed that soppa fermenti was the residue of wort, named spent grains, which consists of the hulls of the grain kernels and the remains left behind therein. Feces fermenti is on the other hand a form of faex which has the meaning of residue of fermented liquid or lees. It could be a serious possibility that the gruithuizen did not make wort but a liquid or porridge 'which transforms the nature of one substance into another', in other words, a ferment(um). The question is if there are older sources, from which could be derived if gruit [directly] caused fermentation.

The old sources.
    The older sources in which gruit is named, are drawn up in Latin. It is possible there could be clues in the Latin terms for gruit, which would tell more about the nature of it. In medieval Latin gruit became fermentum, materia, or by the Roman variants maheria, maderia, maeria, macheria, majera, macera of maceria. 109 The word materia and its variants were preferred mostly within the Roman language group. 110 This means that these variants mostly appear in the Southern Dutch and Northern France sources. Doorman knew about the old sources, but did not give them much attention. All sources which endangered his axiom - that gruit consisted of dried herbs - were noted in a separate appendix. Often they are noted with a description of the text but not with the text itself. 111
    Every once in a while he would include one of these sources within his text, but not to seriously examine it. The source in question would be quickly disqualified and not discussed any further. Take for instance the two records for the abbey of Saint-Truiden. In 1048 Theoderik the bishop of Metz gifted the abbey the scrutum of Saint-Truiden 'scilicet omne ius grute, quod solum ad ipsum pertinebat, et libertatem grutarium constituendi, ac domum cum appendiciis suis, intra quam materia grute conficibatur, sitam in opposito aule abbatis nostri, platea publica intermedia'. 112 The monks received the whole of the gruit rights and permission to raise a gruithuis with belongings and sidebuildings, in which they produced gruit. The wording of the text shows strong similarities with that of Willem III, whom in 1322 leased his gruit rights and gruithuis with belongings to two burghers in Dordrecht. 113
    The gift was confirmed in 1064 by bishop Adalberd. From the wording used to describe the rights it is clear that gruit was a substance which made the beer ferment. The text is as follows: 'scrutum ... hoc est potestatem ponere et deponere ilum, qui materiam faceret unde levarentur cerevisiae.' 114 Especially this last source was threatening for Doormans theory. But instead of a closer study of this source and comparison to other sources of similar intention, he noted it with hardly a word. The lawyer who drew up the record would not have had a good understanding of the function of the substance in brewing. 115 The dried herbs do not have any fermenting nature, therefore the laywer was wrong. This solution to the problem assumes the idea of the ignorant medieval man, who between 500 and 1500 walked around in darkness with nothing more than spiderwebs in his head. Gruit had to have been a commonly known substance, part of daily life. Beer brewed with this substance would have been drunk by many people. Without knowing the details of brewing, the lawyer could have known the substance's function.
    These mentioned records however are not the only sources from which could be derived that gruit was a liquid mass. For instance there is the deed the rights of the count of Namen in the Belgium city of Dinant. This record extends over a period of 17 years, from 1047 to 1064. 116 Gruitrecht was included in the different rights the count owned, which the record indicated with maire. 117 This record is of much importance, because it explained the substance of maire. It is called polenta cervisie, which means as much as 'the porridge or semolina for beer.' In 1668 in England  the word polentarium was used to indicate a brewery and in 1367 polenta was used as a variant of porridge. 118 DeCange explained polenta as a porridge of milk and flour, but polentarii are those who manage the malt, grind and prepare for beer making. 119 The Dictionnaire Francais-Latin also explains polenta as a 'bouille faite avec de l'orge ou du mais.' 120 Classic Latin also knew the word polenta which meant 'hulled barley'. 121 Maybe polenta - and its derivatives - is connected with pollen which means wheat flour. 122
    In 1074 archbishop Anno II of Koln divided the effects, given by count Eberhard of Kleef for the build of the cloister Saint-Quirinus in Neuss, between this cloister and the cathedral church in Koln. As part of the division, the cloister also received the right of gruit in Neuss, without which one was not permitted to brew beer. In the description of the meaning of the law, gruit was called frumentum. 123 This word is not easily explained. In each Latin dictionary it means grain in general or wheat specifically. 124 The Oxford Latin Dictionary describes frumen as a 'gruel or porridge made of corn, and used in sacrifices'. 125 It probably would not go too far to suggest a connection between frumen and frumentum. In the Revised Medieval Latin Word-List frumentum has the meaning of 'wheat porridge'. 126 The middle Dutch formenteit, which Verdam explains as 'flour mush', is derived from the French forment and the Latin frumentum. 127
    In 1098 bishop Radbod of Doornink informed the church of Saint-Maarten that the gruitrecht of the city was leased by two brothers, Radulfus and Letbertus. These brothers whom, according to the text, were not the least in Doornik, received the qualification of the 'fermenti cervisiarum, quod maiera vulgo dicitur', or, the right to prepare the substance for beer which was called maiera. 128 Radbod did not want the clergymen of the church of Saint-Maarten to suffer for lack of fermentum when they brewed the beer they had to drink. 129 Therefore the brothers were required a weekly delivery of 'unum maieram id est unum fermentum'. 130 From this record is not immediately clear of the delivered substance was a liquid. On the other hand, it does derive that fermentum and maiera meant the same: gruit.
    In his article on gruit Van de Kieft notes maire which he equalled with gruit. 131 He described it as a 'sort of porridge, needed for the making of beer.' In other places in the article he described, following Doorman, gruit as a mixture of crushed herbs. 132 He apparently did not realize that he had already described maire, on the basis of the record of count van Namen, as a sort of porridge. As is already pointed out, maire is one of the Roman variants of materia, even though Niermeyer did not menion it in the summary of the Medieae Latinitatis Lexicon. 133 Materia is a neutral term which in classic Latin means substance or matter. The question is if this is also the case with the other, by Niermeyer, mentioned variants. 134
    For instance, I wonder if the words macera, maceria and maiera were not derived from the verb macerare. Niermeyer translated this to mortifier and torturer, while the Oxford Latin Dictionary translates macerare as, to make wet, soak, steep; to soften. That the series macera, maceria, maiera, maire would be derived from macerare, seems to me more logical than that they derived from materia. The shift from c to t is, I think, linguistically unlikely, especially when there is a better alternative with the same consonant. The meaning of macera is much more in agreement with the substance gruit as a porridge or liquid. Moreover in English there are two sources where malt is indicated with macetum. 135 Macerer exists in modern French, where it still has the meaning of soaking: 'Faire tremper un corps solide pendant un certain temps pour charger le liquide des principes solubles de ce corps ou pour modifier celui-ci.' 136 It could even be related to the beer brewery, in which an instrument is used to soak malt: 'Macerateur: Recipient, appareil utilise pour faire macerer une substance. Le brassage consite a epuisser le malt broye par l'eau chaude sand une cuve-matiere ou dans un macerateur'. Described here is a malting tub.
    On the same note, I ask myself the same question with the by Niermeyer used variant maderia. When looking for a similar word in classic Latin one quickly finds maderare. While the consonant-shift from t to d seems quite likely, it could be more likely that maderia is derived from maderare which has everything to do with being wet, damp, liquid and even with being drunk. 137 Again it seems that a completely different but better explanation can be given for the source of which Roman variances are derived. It can almost not be an accident that Roman terms for the substance of gruit all have something to do with (the making of) a liquid or soaked mass.

Tentative conclusions.
    What are the conclusions based on the information given? In respect to the courtly or royal provinance of gruitrecht we can be to the point. There is more than enough proof in the form of old royal deeds to show that gruit right was a royal right [regaal]. 138 It was a commercial monopoly on the production and sales of the substance of gruit, which makes it look more like a court law [banrecht]. Also the production found place in gruithuizen with instruments belonging to the holder of gruitrecht. Again this makes one think more of a court right than a royal right. It looks like this right takes a position between that of a court and of a royal right. Further research would have to be done to indicate how the development of gruitrecht happened and which position it took between the other royal rights [regalia].
    The gruithuis was the place where diverse herbs, grain and malt were collected to then undergo a process. It was not only a place of storage for herbs, as Van de Kieft suggested. Doorman did not realize that the herbs in the gruithuis would be crushed, by which he misunderstood the essential function of the gruithuis. A second function of the gruithuis was malting and crushing of malted grains. In Deventer this happened during 2 years in presence of a miller. It is quite likely that the Dordtse brewers mentioned in the ordinance of 1322 also brought their malt to the gruithuis to have it crushed. They then received a certain amount of gruit substance needed for the fermentation of the delivered amount of malted grains. The third function was the preparation of the substance of gruit, which Doorman interpreted as wort. He thought that this was a fairly new activity. Although the sources and the analysis of the Latin and Roman terms for gruit indicate that the preparation of a porridge or liquid for the making of beer was part of the task of gruiters for a very long time. It is my opinion it would have been the main task of their activities.
    What the exact composition of the substance of gruit was is difficult to say. Its function was 'to change the nature of one substance into another.' It is therefore important that the porridge consisted of at least an amount of soaked (wheat) malt of a high concentration. It is quite possible that the crushed herbs were mixed through this, or delivered separately. What the function of the resin was is not clear to me. Maybe they mixed the herbs and resin to give the beer a certain taste or to preserve it, but it is also possible to get the same effect by coating the inside of the barrels with resin. In this manner the barrels did not leak and the gruit substance, and thereby the beer, received a resin-y taste. That this could be part of the possibilities could be derived from the word rumphersen in the  administrative chambers account of 1339. The word rump means barrel [vat], which could mean the resin was used to waterproof the barrels. 139 Tar, at least, was used to waterproof coopered wares. The Middle Dutch meaning of tar is pine resin. 140
    Doorman puts too much emphasis in his argument on that he had already solved the problem of gruit. As a result each indication that gruit could have been something else was referred to an appendix, or he claimed it a mistake because medieval people wrongly interpreted the function of gruit. He rather thought that for hundreds of years people thought herbs caused fermentation, than to accept that the medieval person most definitely knew of the forces in the changing and sprouting kernel of grain, without knowing the chemical processes behind it.
    Too many people have thought that the solution to this problem was found and have continuously quoted Doorman, and each other, since 1955. Although Doorman was not completely wrong he did leave important clues untouched. Van de Kieft did notice that the translation of polenta cervisie would point towards a mush or liquid, but then he did not see any wrong, following Doorman, to claim on almost the same page that the gruit substance consisted of dried herbs. Apparently this contradiction had eluded him. A lot more research is needed to come to a good understanding of the right to gruit and the substance of gruit, but it is clearly shown to be a right with an important social function. The gruithuis was a central place within the city and the rural areas, where people bought the ingredient for one of the most important nourishments of the middle ages.

Footnotes will be translated and added as time allows.

Chapter V In the Gruithouse

De Middeleeuwse Brouwerij en de Gruit - The Medieval Brewery and the Gruit.
by G. Doorman, 1955. Translated by Susan Verberg, 2017.

Chapter V In the gruithuis.

The administrative chamber accounts of Deventer are also of much importance to find out about business in the gruithuis. Some details from this are collected in the table in Appendix IV-VI. After the year 1348 the results of city interference in this matter are only globally noted, but from the years 1339-1348 we have at least six years of detailed accounts.
    In 1339, the first year in which the city had rented the gruit of the Bishop of Utrecht, it bought in raw materials ca. 222 mud bog myrtle for ca. 333 fl and also duris specibus for 1 Mk 19 s 6 br (thus 6 fl 6 s) and resin for 22 s 6 br (thus 4 fl 10 s). There is a notation of 22 Mk 6 s (53 fl 2 s) 'ad emendum Mirtum' and one of 27 Mk (64 fl 16 s) without a description. These two notations are included in the expenses for bog myrtle; ad emendum = to buy (emo = buying).
    The substance of gruit was sold in certain amounts, most often a two part unit (duabus grutis), sometimes a three part unit (tribus grutis). In later years often in larger amounts together, so one finds in 1347, apart from una, duabus and tribus, also notations for quatuor, quinque and even decem grutis. The prices rather accurately reflect these amounts. The city official in 1344 numbered these amounts in sequence and gave, for instance, a notation for the 11th to 15th in gruta. In German cities one also finds the sale of such constant amounts of gruit. In the by Kraus (Kra 23) examined city accounts of Wesel between the years of 1342-1390 one called such a unit a 'satta' and there the sale often happened with 2 satta at a time.
    The word satta might have bene derived from sat = enough, sufficient, and most probably were all units meant to be enough for one brew of the in that city usual amount.
    To know how much gruit this unit contains, it is important to know that at the end of 1339 of the 22 mud gagel bought 66 mud was left. Therefore 156 mud had to be made into the 48 units gruit, which had been sold. That means 3 1/2 mud per unit.
    The accounts of Wesel of 1348 and 1349 note about gruit that '110 satta que faciunt 137 1/2 maldra' and 102 satta there are 127 1/2 maldra. Therefore here 1 satta = 1 1/3 maldrum gruit.
    How much these units could be measured in hl [hectoliters], is shown by the data in the 'Tresoir' of 1590 (Tre). There is noted that an Amsterdam 'last' was the same as 27 mud in Deventer. On these grounds, as noted in the next chapter (IX), I therefore take for the Amsterdam last a volume of 2877 l  [liters], so the mud in Deventer would be 106.55 l, and the unit in gruit thus 346,4 l.
    The maldrum of Wesel is not mentioned in the Tresoir, but it does mention that the Amsterdam 'last' in the land of Cleve counts as 15 1/2 'mouwer'. Wesel is not far from Kleef [Cleve] and in 1385 (after Kleef was united with the county of Mark) gifted Wesel to 'onsere Vrouwe van Cleve' [our Lady of Cleve] 1 ohm wine. Should I compare the mouwer of Kleef identical to the maldrum of Wesel, then I would assume for this 185.6 l and for the satta 190 l.
    In Deventer a mud gagel cost in 1347 71 s (pound system).
    In Wesel 1 maldrum gagel cost in 1347 20 s in the mark system, thus 80 s in the pound system. If the maldrus was 185.6 l then Wesel should, for 106.5 l (Deventer mud), only have paid 46 s, which is 35% less than in Deventer. This is not assumed as bog myrtle was sourced from Arnhem, Deventer and Zwolle. Presumably the maldrum in Wesel is thus not much bigger than the mud of Deventer. Should one make them the same, then the satta becomes only 133 l, which could indicate that Wesel also brewed with a lot less grain per brew than Deventer.
    Kraus noted the market prices of bog myrtle in Wesel for the whole period of 1342-1390 per maldrum. According to appendix IV, in Deventer in 1348 the unit price was 150% higher than in 1347, in Wesel that year the unit prices were almost 100% higher than the year before; although many fluctuations occur, only around 1382 does it reflect a decline. This is probably caused by less demand due to the transition to hops.
    Bog myrtle and gruit was traded in a dry state; this is concluded by the fact that it was available throughout the year. Hoops (Hoo 282) takes gruit for an 'Extrakt der Krauter, ja diese selbst' [an herb extract]. That others thought of an extract might have to do with the mention of vats and kettles in the gruithuises, but, as is explained below, those served a different purpose.
    We know, for instance, that in St Gallen malt was ground in morters into a coarse flour (Gei 133 and MuJ 80). In the administrative accounts of 1340 is often mention of the 'stampus'; I assume, that just as in St. Gallen there was a mill. The word stampus or stamphus is then used for the place in which this apparatus was housed, because in 1340 3 fl 4 s was paid for the work which had been done in this place: 'de operc (read opero) facto ad domum dictam stamphus'. Apparently this was also the place where the inventory was stored, of which the gruitmeesters [masters of the gruit] at the end of their service year were accountable for; so one reads from 1347 and 1348 'de gruta dimissa in stampa'. The word operc could also be a shortening of the word operculum = lid to close, which would have been made in that room.

    Not clear is what was done with the press, which is mentioned in the following passages:
1414: Item voer die persse te verbetere [to make the press better] ... 1 gl. 7 pl.
    Item 1 nye bedde ende lit ter perscen ende voer holtwerc daertoe ... 28 pl.
    [Item one new bed and lid to press and for woodwork thereto]
1421: Item voer 1 holt een bedde tot der perssen te vueren ende te zaghene ... 10 pl.
    [Item for one wood for a bed to the press to feed into and to saw?]
    Item die persse te makene [to make or repair the press] ... 17 pl.

Nowadays before shipment hops is pressed in to bales to about a 10th of its volume. It is unlikely that one already did this in Deventer in the 15th century with gruit. Bog myrtle and hops were measured in volume and with 'mytter platter hand' [with a flat hand] leveled. (Luk 62) The numbers for the volume per Amsterdam ships' pound in the 'Tresoir' (Tre 123) points to very little specific weight.
    That the gruit business in Zwolle could exist in almost the same place [geographically] as Deventer could be explained from what I noted of the year 1398. This article of the ordinance brings us right into the Deventer gruithouse atmosphere, as the city administrators had to turn over, at the end of their duty to their successors, the 'crude', 'hersen' and 'zwaer crude' [herbs, resins, heavy herbs]. Later this article was removed from the ordinance; indeed it does not fit into the ordinance well, as it is about an internal rule of the government.
    At the end of their service year the officials in charge of gruit gave the keys to their successors. With the sale of the gruit in Wesel one or two city officials had to be present; sometimes also bog myrtle or malt was sold. (Kra 10)
    The fermentarius (the gruiter) in Wesel was the best paid civil servant. In the list of civil servants Kraus also found the word 'druper' which he can not place; this could have been the announcer, therefore not connected to the brewery. Also about the often returning posts like 'pro cespitibus fodiensis' and 'de plaustris cespitum introducendis' Kraus gives no explanation; this could have meant the digging out and transport of peat. What this had to do with the gruithouse in Wesel is not said for sure. As far as the accounts show, they mostly sold a lot of gruit and not much bog myrtle or malt. If the amounts of peat are too large to heat the house maybe this fuel was used to heat the 'eest' [malt oven] to dry privately prepared malted grains.

Medulla brasii and soppa fermenti (gruet soppe)

The expression medulla brasii first showed up in 1340 in a separate account of the gruitmasters of Deventer. That year distinguishes itself from the previous also because several new expenses were necessary:

1) a pendiculo(-um) dicto henge ad caldarium (a hanging aparatus for the kettle) ... 1 fl
2) a caldario(-um) cuso cuidam coperslagher [copper kettle] ... 6 fl 10 s
3) 10 (?) mud grain ... 17 fl 2 s
4) 1 schuit peat (cespites) ... 4 fl
5) 1 scepel (shovel) ... 10s

Also firewood, copper, lead, iron, stones, wood construction and the already mentioned work in the stamphus or mill.
    Apparently some sort of brewing was going on, but of what? The city had a wine cellar, managed by a domus de vino, and this business produced fl 600 in 1340, but apparently had no beer on tap. Also there is no mention of other sales of beer (cervisia). I therefore came to the conclusion, that the medulla brasii which was sold must have been wort. Later I heard that at least in Belgium until recent times wort was sold to others by certain breweries, whom then through fermentation made their own beer.
    Of the point of view of the city this is a reasonable idea, as this way the small brewers did not all need to own a kettle to heat [brew]. The city did not compete much with their principal customers, as would have been the case if the city had started their own brewery of any importance.
    The Latin translation of wort is not unreasonable: it is indeed the core, the medulla, thus the essence of malt (brasium) and not beer (cervisia). In a lexicon of 1773 is also spoken of the core in the brewery process: '... dass es im Wasser seinen Kern und bestes Wesen endlich gehen lasset' or, the grain in water its core and best essences at long last lets go. (Ges 31, 36)
    If multiple cities started to supply wort I was not able to ascertain. It would not surprise me if this was the case in 1487 in Munich, although Sedlmayer (Ges 41, 10) denies this. One reads in the ordinance concerning this: 'aber unverjeren pier mögen die prewen auf das Lande geben, wie bisher geschehen ist' [only unjust? beer can the brewers from the land give, as has always been done?]. In 1440 in Kampen the gruit was still leased by that city, even though it did not make revenue; with the lease was determined, that the leaser would be leased 'ketel noch stamte' [kettle nor press]. This might mean that in earlier times in the gruit business a kettle was used, and this would be for the making and sale of wort.
    From Appendix IV can be deduced that the city of Deventer delivered wort for at least 9 years. As the later administrative chamber accounts are not as detailed, we do not know of how it continued. Maybe the purchase of a 'gatenplancke' [wood board with holes] in 1414 indicates continuation.
    The accounts of 1340 and 1344 did not include soppa fermenti yet; a small amount for the purchase of such is noted for the first time in 1345. In the years 1347 and 48 with the increasing income of wort the income of gruet soppe also increased a little. Just like the medulla brasii, this soppa fermenti or gruet soppe could not be identified but nowadays it is clear that with the making of wort the filtered off spent grains were sold under this name. The substance apparently made one think of a thick vegetable soap and had some value as livestock feed.

Mixing of gruit and malt.
In Deventer the delivered gruit did not contain added malt. As is however mentioned in chapter II, in Dordrecht it was usual that the brewer would bring his malt to the gruithuis, in order that the gruiter could add the gruit substance to it. This is written in ordinances of 1322 and 1401. This unnecessary transport back and forth of malt makes it into an unwieldy rule. Two things could have been the reason: first avoiding fraud by only using part of the received gruit and sell the rest to other brewers, who then did not pay tax to the city; second the strive for uniform and good quality of beer brewed in the city. The everywhere existing ordinances to not use more than a certain amount of water also served this goal, or as it is called, to not brew the brew longer than a certain amount of barrels of beer.
    It could also be to make it more difficult to analyze the contents of the gruit substance. According to Grewe (Gre 18) the gruiter in Koln added a little malt to the gruit to keep the composition secret.

Did the city also brew or tap beer?
As has been said, this was initially not the case in Deventer. In 1357 a couple of smaller purchases for hopped beer were accounted for (cervisie hummulate, or orientali, thus German). Already in 1347 hops is bought, probably to mix with bog myrtle, to process into gruit, and in the years '60 the city starts to interfere with hopped beer making. The 'vieren die de hoppe vorwaren zullen' [the four who will account for the hops] are appointed in 1361 and in 1363 these civil servants are sworn in. Also the regulation of hops begins (1362). Still in 1363 someone bought three barrels of hopped beer from Emmerik, and in that year there is correspondence between Amersfoort, Amsterdam, Monnikendam, Weesp, Hoorn and Enkhuizen about hops, probably in conjunction with the to the bishop owed gruitrights and 'der stad pleyt teghens den bisschop van Vtrecht' [the city pleads to the bishop of Utrecht], for which they even 'appelaci zinghen' [sang an appeal?].
    It is not sure if the city of Deventer made hopped beer, or only traded in small amounts. The income from hopped beer in the 14th century is never more than that of gruit and is mostly noted as 'hoppensize' [tax on hops], in contrast to the tapping of wine. Maybe they were mostly limited to excise duty. This had to be paid with import as well: to control this in 1363 people were employed 'die scepe omme ghenghen ende zochten dat hoppenbier' or, who would go onto ships to search for hopped beer; they had to 'antasten' [taste] the in the city arrived beer.
    Of the German regions who made gruit beer, almost every city of some renown had a gruithuis and many German cities had their own brewery and a Ratskeller, where beer was tapped. Especially about Munster we are really well informed because of the study of Grewe (Gre). In Munster next to the gruit right existed also the city brewery; and in 1448 the city received a monopoly for the tapping of 'das frommede bier' (strange beer, or imported beer) as well. They would tap this beer 'de quarte von 2 Pf, als de tit dat liden mach und anders nimant bi sinen brocke' (a fine). Others were allowed to tap grusink (gruit beer) for 1 Pf per quart and per ton of 108 quarters for 8 s.
    In Germany not only cities but also cloisters brewed for sale; from our country not much is known about cloister brewing, although Maastricht at least brewed for third parties, sie Appendix I at 1299 and also Ever 176.