SC - More on 'Nef' (including a citation)

[James Prescott]

Thorvald here:

At 12:30 -0800 2001-02-22, Laura C. Minnick wrote:

> Your post got me wondering-where on earth did Wilson get this 'info'? I
> wonder because: 
> A) I've never seen it elsewhere, 
> 
> B) if guests brought their own stuff in a 'nef', why do no descriptions
> of doing it show up in manners books, why do you not see anyone carrying
> them in feast scenes, why do we not see a LOT of them on the tables,
> behind the tables, under the tables, etc, and 
> 
> C) where did the dishes go? A great many feast pictures show very few
> dishes of the personal sort- did everyone forget their nef?


I wonder too.  Not having read her, I don't know whether Wilson is a 
solid researcher and has found a rare but accurate word usage, or has
got it wrong or copied from someone else who got it wrong.  The sketch
looks as though it was taken from a period illustration, though the
labelling of the two 'nefs' might not be period.  I await additional
information about the provenance of the sketch from anyone who has 
a copy of Wilson.


As to where the guests put their nefs (if any such thing existed), 
perhaps they left them with their cloaks and other outdoor gear.

As to why they aren't depicted often, most feast pictures I can 
find show head tables where I would expect all of the utensils 
except perhaps personal knives to be provided by the host; or 
household tables with (presumably) no guests.  The "other ranks" 
guest tables are seldom depicted.

One illustration has three large boat-shaped nefs on a table for six 
diners.  Do all three belong to the host, or have some of the guests 
(who look like princes and bishops) brought their own?

Many of the tables show only serving dishes or plates or trenchers, 
cups, knives, and bread.  No candles, no spoons, no napkins, no salt 
cellars.  If these are accurate and not just artistic simplification, 
there would seldom be a need for a guest to bring anything more than 
their personal knife and perhaps their favourite cup (we know that
some people did this even when the host supplied cups).  Not much 
need for a specialised container there.

As to personal dishes, most sources I've read suggest that plates 
were shared by two or more and were usually supplied by the host,
so a nef (if any such thing existed) would have held at most knife,
spoon, napkin, and cup.

Menagier describes renting hanaps (cups) and silver spoons for all 
of the diners at a wedding, as well as having enough pewter dishes 
and bread trenchers for all.  Fancy saltcellars for the high table 
and bread saltcellars for the other tables are mentioned.  That 
leaves only knives for the guests to bring.

As an aside, he describes the dishes being escorted in by the
bridegroom.

As a second aside, related to the earlier discussion about 
Taillevent, Menagier says "_Item_, a big and strong _sergent_ 
to guard the portals".  The _sergent_ is hired for the occasion 
for 1 franc.


Additional idea:  The original poster said that the word being 
used was 'neft'.  It occurs to me that if the original was printed 
with a long 's', then the original might actually have been 'nest'.  
There are period citations (see OED) for 'nest of goblets' and nests 
of boxes etc. meaning goblets or boxes or other items that nested 
inside each other.  Just a thought.


Thorvald