SC - trencher history guesses

[Decker, Terry D.]

> is that the urban poor didn't generally have regular easy
> access to milled grain and ovens, and the rural poor, while they could
> have built mills and ovens, don't appear to have been in too many
> situations calling for trenchers, largely because it probably would
> indicate proximity to a manor or castle, which more or less makes them
> urban, not rural.
> 
In the urban environment, the ovens were most commonly owned by the baker to
limit fire hazard.  The baker produced bread for the retail trade and baked
the general populace's bake goods for fee.  The quality and quantity of
bread you ate depended on what you could afford.  There was also the
difference between the brown and white bakers.  Brown bakers baked general
loaves for the people.  White bakers baked white bread for the carriage
trade.  IIRC, the distinction becomes moot in the 15th Century when the
guilds joined and became bakers.  Of course there is the point that workmen
were commonly given meals including bread as part of their hire.

Communal ovens are most common in reasonable well off villages which were
too small to interest a beggar.  These were commonly fired and served by men
who had retired from more active work.  For these services, the oven keepers
were recompensed by gratuities of money and food.

Rural farms without the services of an oven, could bake bread in a cook pot,
as was being done into this century.  In this environment, it is common to
bake large loaves a couple times a week, so that they can stand up to a four
day shelf life without drying out.

Mills in England were technically owned by the lord of a manor and the fees
accrued to the lord, except, there is a study that show there were almost
double the number of independent mills as there were manor mills.  These
mills were actually operating outside of the law, but apparently there was
so much milling business no one complained.  Almost everyplace in England
had the services of a mill.

If you could afford the service charges, you could eat bread.  The quality
and quantity of bread available would be based on a person's position in the
economic pyramid.

> Now I agree with the idea that it's pretty much human nature to dunk
> your bread (if you have any) in your soup (if you have any) and eat it,
> but using that as the main basis for an argument that trenchers were not
> given to those seeking alms, but eaten by the rich instead, sounds a
> little extreme. That's just a general comment, not aimed at Ras... .
> 
> Adamantius
> Østgardr, East
> -- 
> Phil & Susan Troy
> 
> troy at asan.com
> 
By their nature, trenchers are conspicuous consumption.  They are made from
bread which has been deliberately allowed to go stale, which could only be
afforded by a person of privilege, at a time when most people worked hard to
earn their "daily bread," literally.

As a social mechanism, sending the trenchers for alms represents the
transfer of wealth from the haves to the have-not in a society without the
benefit of social welfare.  It helps meet the requirement of the feudal
contract that the lord shall provide for his people.  And it fits in with
the concept of Christian charity.  Do you eat your trencher, if you see it
as the "duty" of your position to give it to the poor?

Bear
============================================================================

To be removed from the SCA-Cooks mailing list, please send a message to
Majordomo at Ansteorra.ORG with the message body of "unsubscribe SCA-Cooks".

============================================================================