Thursday, September 7, 2017

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment