APPENDIXAPPENDIXMost aspects of women’s work in medieval and early modern England remain undocumented and hence unstudied by historians. Chance references tell us that women predominated in certain types of work, such as dairying, gleaning, spinning, and caring for the sick. Yet we know very little about such female occupations. The one exception is commercial brewing, for which considerable documentation survives. In most medieval communities, commercial brewers endured strict supervision under the provisions of the assize of ale, both as articulated by the thirteenth-century quasi statutes and as worked out in local practice. Enforcing standards of measurement, quality, and pricing under the assize, local officers reported their findings to manorial or civic courts. Their reports, often made every three weeks, provide lists of commercial brewers that span decades or even centuries, and they are sometimes supplemented with information about frequency of brewing, types of ale, and the activities of tipplers. Few medieval trades were as carefully regulated and, hence, as well documented as the brewing trade.
Yet, although presentments of brewers under the assize of ale provide a voluminous source of information about commercial brewing, they also present considerable interpretative challenges. This appendix explains how these challenges were resolved for this study, especially in chapters 2 and 3. Needless to say, many other primary sources used in this book—such as literary and artistic texts, civic ordinances, gild records, and brewing accounts—have also required careful evaluation. Also, many of the subjects considered in this book—such as cultural representations of alewives, regulation of brewers by gilds, and most aspects of brewing in the sixteenth century—have not required much use of assize presentments. In focusing on assize presentments in this appendix, I do not mean to imply either that the interpretation of all the other sources used in this book is more straightforward or, indeed, that only commercial brewing as reported under the assize has been considered in this book. Put simply, assize presentments merit special treatment because their use requires careful explanation. Section I discusses method and interpretation, explaining how conclusions about brewers were derived from presentments under the assize. The subsequent two sections provide information about the rural and urban communities included in the survey of assize presentments.
I. Interpreting Assize Presentments
In most communities, local officers (often called aletasters or aleconners) supervised commercial brewing and presented brewers at court sessions. As discussed in Chapter 6, this supervision antedated the thirteenth-century quasi statutes but thereafter fell within their limits. The Assisa regulated the prices set for ale, which were to vary according to both the cost of grain and the place of sale. Brewers were to be amerced for their first three offenses and punished physically thereafter. These limited statutory provisions changed in actual practice, with officers usually supervising not only the price of ale but also its quality and measurement. Brewers were therefore liable for punishment if they committed any of three offenses: selling ale in false or illegal measures, selling ale of poor quality, or selling ale at excessive prices. Brewers could also incur punishment for trying to escape supervision by, for example, failing to summon the aletasters or selling without proper publicity. Yet as the scope of enforcement widened, the scope of punishment narrowed. Local courts infrequently punished brewers on the cucking-stool or by similar public humiliations, preferring instead to profit from amercements.
Presentments varied. For example, this is how the brewers of Woolhope (Herefordshire) were presented on 29 July 1344:1
The tasters of Donnington present that John le Brut (i) [and] Gilbert de Culham (i) brewed and broke the assize. Assize 12 pence
The tasters of [Wool] Hope present that Alice de Pokemore (i), William de la Broke, Alice de Stonhull (i), Idonea de Stonhull (i), Thomas le Bruchere (i), William le Bailiff (i), Richard de Neuconer (i), Adam de Ravenhull (i), [and] Geoffrey le Knyght (i) brewed and broke the assize. [The tasters of] Brockhampton [present that] Margery de Dene [and] Margery Richardson (i) [brewed and broke the assize]. [The tasters of] Putley [present that] Walter Comyn (i) brewed etc. [The tasters of] Buckenhill [present] nothing. Assize 5 shillings.
A few months later, on the first day of December 1344, brewers and alesellers in Ingatestone (Essex) were presented in a slightly different manner:
Richard ate Hyd and Thomas Hamekyn, tasters of ale, in mercy because they did not do their office. Mercy 4d.
The wife of Richard Osebarn in mercy because she brewed and sold against the assize. Mercy 3d.
Alice Geroldis in mercy for the same. Mercy 4d.
The wife of William Synoch in mercy for the same. Mercy 3d.
The wife of Stephen le Tannere in mercy for the same. Mercy 4d.
William Morisce in mercy for the same. Mercy 2d.
Hawise Huckestere, regrater, [in mercy] because she sells against the assize. Mercy 2d.
William ate Halle and Thomas Morisce, tasters of ale, in mercy because they did not do their office. Mercy 4d.
Beatrice Jurdonys in mercy because she brewed and sold against the assize. Mercy 4d.
Margery Coppyngho in mercy for the same. Mercy 3d.
The wife of Thomas Tayllour in mercy for the same. Mercy 2d.
Margery Forys in mercy for the same. Mercy 2d.
The wife of John atte Strate in mercy for the same. Mercy 3d.
The wife of William ate Halle in mercy for the same. Mercy 3d.
The wife of William Wodeward, regrater, in mercy because she sold against the assize. Mercy 4d.
Katherine Bullis in mercy for the same. Mercy 2d.
The wife of Thomas Loncrote in mercy for the same. Mercy 4d.
The wife of John ate Welle in mercy for the same. Mercy 2d.
As these examples from Woolhope and Ingatestone suggest, there is a certain numbing familiarity about assize presentments, for they seem always to provide long lists of names with petty fines and little further information. Yet there are also important differences in how jurisdictions regulated their brewers and in how that regulation changed, even within one jurisdiction, over the course of time. Furthermore, although presentments of brewers seem to be straightforward and clear, their proper use in historical analysis is complex. Three critical questions had to be resolved in order to use these presentments to reconstruct commercial brewing in late medieval and early modern England.
Do these presentments tell us about all brewers?
Designed to regulate commerce in ale, the assize of ale never encompassed domestic brewing; women who produced ale for consumption by their families were neither presented nor regulated by aletasters. In terms of its coverage of commercial brewers, presentments under the assize raise two possibilities: they include either all commercial brewers or only those who broke the assize. The difference is critical, for the former allows us to treat assize presentments as fully encompassing commercial brewing whereas the latter suggests that assize presentments provide a limited view of the trade.
Three considerations suggest that assize presentments incompletely report on commercial brewing. First, in some jurisdictions, brewers obtained longterm licenses to ply their trade, and these offered some immunity from presentment under the assize. At Alciston (Sussex) in 1445, for example, William Coby paid 6d. to brew wherever and whenever (totiens quotiens) he pleased unless he brewed very improperly (nisi graviter delinquent).2 If long-term licenses such as these allowed many brewers to escape presentment by aletasters, presentments provide inadequate coverage of the trade. Second, some aletasters, like those in Ingatestone in 1344, were fined for official malfeasance. If aletasters really neglected their duties, their presentments incompletely report the trade in ale. Third, the wording used in most presentments of brewers indicates that only offenders were noted. In Woolhope and Ingatestone (and in almost all other jurisdictions), the aletasters presented persons who had “brewed and broken the assize” or “brewed and sold against the assize.” If we take the court record literally, only offending brewers, not all brewers, were presented.
None of these considerations, however, seriously limits the coverage of commercial brewers found in most assize presentments. Long-term licenses were neither common nor long in duration. William Coby’s long-term license, which lasted just one year, was one of only a handful issued in mid-fifteenth-century Alciston.3 In pre-plague Brigstock (Northamptonshire), for another example, brewers purchased only 48 long-term licenses but paid 3,796 amercements for breaking the assize. In addition, long-term licenses did not permit brewers to disappear from the written record, for they were carefully noted in court rolls, and they also did not preclude presentment of offending licensees.4 Most important, many jurisdictions seem to have issued no long-term licenses at all, requiring all brewers to be subject to regular amercement; of the 19 rural communities included in the sample, brewers secured long-term licenses in Brigstock and Alciston alone. In short, the occasional issuance of long-term licenses does not seriously undermine the coverage of assize presentments.
Dereliction of duty by aletasters also presents only a minor problem. Aletasters could fail to make thorough presentments in many ways—missing a particular brewing, forgetting specific cases when they came before the court, overlooking cheating by family and friends, or pricing ale as stronger or weaker than its true quality deserved. Supervising the ale trade was an onerous duty at which most aletasters inevitably fell short, at least occasionally. In addition, as discussed in chapter 6, supervising the ale trade could be a profitable occupation, with some aletasters accepting bribes or favors from brewers and others overlooking brewing done in their own households. As a result, in some rural jurisdictions, aletasters were regularly amerced for generally failing at their job. Yet, these amercements were so standardized that they suggest a financial arrangement rather than a supervisory problem. In Ingatestone, for example, aletasters were amerced with as much regularity as brewers from the very first surviving assize presentments in 1292 until the 1480s. Amercements of aletasters were more a source of profit for lords than a comment on the quality of their work.5
Despite the inevitable pitfalls (and potential profits) of regulating the trade in ale, aletasters had to be generally honest for a simple reason: their work was very public. Because any ale offered for sale was publicly announced, an aletaster who supervised brewers was, in turn, supervised by their customers. He knew that if his presentments were flawed, local juries or tithingmen or other officers might correct them. In Ingatestone, for example, aletasters were sometimes amerced more than the standard sum precisely because they had committed specified errors.6 Indeed, public oversight of aletasters was so compelling that some aletasters presented themselves or their own wives for brewing; William ate Halle did so in the Ingatestone presentment transcribed above.7 In short, despite complaints about official malfeasance and despite regular amercements of aletasters in some jurisdictions, it seems likely that aletasters presented most brewers most of the time.
The formula that stated that all named brewers had “brewed and broken the assize” was also a profitable fiction. Despite this formula, all brewers—those who brewed properly as well as those who brewed badly—usually faced amercement. In some cases, brewers were presented but not amerced unless they had traded against the assize. In late thirteenth-century Preston-on-Wye (Herefordshire), for example, most brewers paid amercements of 6d. in each court, but sometimes a man paid nothing because he (or his wife) had observed the assize (quia tenuit assisam).8 In other cases, all brewers were amerced just for plying their trade, but those who offended against the assize paid especially large amercements. In early fourteenth-century Chedzoy (Somerset), for example, aletasters presented brewers twice: once for brewing and once for using false measures.9 And in some other cases, all brewers were fined not according to the offense but according to the frequency of brewing. In fourteenth-century Stockton (Wiltshire), for example, brewers were liable for 4d. per brewing; if a brewster produced five batches of ale (good or bad), she paid 2od.10 Although technically levied “for breaking the assize,” these amercements functioned as a de facto licensing system.
These sorts of patterns imply that although offending brewers often paid more in amercements than other brewers, all brewers were presented by aletasters at their local courts. Presentment-as-licensing explains the long-term licenses occasionally purchased by brewers in Alciston, Brigstock, and elsewhere, for such licenses would have had no purpose in a system that amerced offending brewers only. Presentment-as-licensing also explains the numbing repetition of supposedly erring brewers that is a feature of all lists of assize presentments. At Earl Soham (Suffolk), for example, Walter Bele or his wife, Agnes, were presented for “brewing and breaking the assize” at every court held between 1356 and 1376. The Beles were not flagrantly cheating their customers year after year; instead, they managed an established brewing business and paid a small licensing fee to follow the trade. Indeed, a few years after the Beles ceased brewing, the court of Earl Soham abandoned the fiction of amercements under the assize. Thereafter, brewers were simply noted as having brewed and having, hence, paid stated sums.11
The origins of the practice of amercing all brewers for supposedly “breaking” or “selling against” the assize are obscure, but two factors might have played a role. First, aletasters had good reason to suspect all brewers of misconduct all the time. Indeed, given contemporary imprecisions of quality, measurement, and coinage, most brewers probably broke the assize on a regular basis (whether willfully or not). In such circumstances, an aletaster could best perform his (or rarely, her) office by charging all brewers with the seemingly inevitable effect of commercial brewing, that is, an infraction under the assize of ale. Second, presentments under the assize complemented and sometimes replaced earlier tolls on brewers. These tolls had various names—tolcester, cannemol, alesilver—and were found in a variety of jurisdictions (urban as well as rural). As a rule, they were levied on all commercial brewers within the jurisdiction who, simply by virtue of pursuing their trade, were liable for payment in either cash or ale. In Cuxham (Oxfordshire), for example, commercial brewers paid either Id. per brewing or a gallon of their ale. These ale tolls sometimes coexisted with assize supervision, sometimes superseded it, and sometimes were replaced by it; but in all cases, they created a strong precedent for amercing all brewers, regardless of the legality of their trade. In other words, although the assize of ale sought to punish offending brewers only, tolls were levied on all brewers; it seems likely that the latter influenced the enforcement of the former.12
In short, presentments under the assize of ale constituted a de facto system of short-term licensing, and they provide good coverage of the trade.13 To be sure, as in all administrative records, some persons avoided supervision at some times, but both the intent of the supervisors and, in most cases, their actual effect was to cover all those who brewed for profit. It is impossible to estimate the extent to which brewers slipped through the supervisory web, escaping presentment and amercement and, hence, eluding historical recovery, but this slippage was neither common nor widespread.14 It seems likely that when aletasters failed to report all brewers thoroughly, they probably especially overlooked either their own relatives or occasional brewers who sold ale infrequently. To be sure, many occasional brewsters were cited by aletasters (273 were named in Brigstock alone), but others might have never been brought before the attention of their courts. Nevertheless, by-industrial and (later) professional brewers were well known, well supervised, and thus well reported in extant records. Despite the formulaic statement that brewers had “broken the assize,” all brewers, whether guilty of offense or not, were supervised and named by aletasters. Despite the occasional purchase of a long-term license by a brewer, the vast majority of brewers paid amercements under the assize. And despite amercements levied against erring aletasters, they seem to have done their work reasonably well, striving to bring all brewers before the attention of their courts. Originally addressed only to the identification and punishment of erring brewers, the assize of ale provided a means for regulating all brewers, and the records of its enforcement therefore are an exceptional source for reconstructing the history of commercial brewing in medieval and early modern communities.
Do these presentments provide reliable information about the sex of brewers?
As the examples of Woolhope and Ingatestone illustrate, aletasters identified more male brewers in some villages than in others. In Woolhope men predominated, whereas in Ingatestone only one male brewer was named. In my first effort to study commercial brewing from ale presentments, I assumed that the presence of men and women in the trade was accurately reflected in presentments of aletasters. In other words, I once would have concluded that the difference between the many male brewers cited in Woolhope and the many female brewers cited in Ingatestone was a real difference, that is, that male brewers predominated in Woolhope and brewsters in Ingatestone. This was wrong.15
The different sex ratios of cited brewers in Woolhope and Ingatestone represent not real facts of the trade but instead different clerical practices. In Woolhope, men were cited for brewing done by their wives (that is, presentments under the assize were householder-focused); in Ingatestone, wives were themselves named (that is, presentments were individual-focused). In other words, if the wife of Richard Osebarn, who was fined 3d. for brewing against the assize in Ingatestone, had plied her trade in Woolhope, her husband would have been cited in her stead. How do we know this?
First, patterns of citation strongly suggest this conclusion. Consider, for example, the above illustrations from Woolhope and Ingatestone. In both villages, some women—probably either singlewomen or widows—were identified by forename and surname alone (such as Alice de Pokemore in Woolhope or Alice Geroldis in Ingatestone). Wives were treated differently. In Woolhope, no female brewer was cited as “the wife of” a named male, whereas this is the most common type of citation in the Ingatestone list. Unless no wives brewed in Woolhope (a most unlikely possibility), this divergence in citations—no wives in Woolhope, many wives in Ingatestone—suggests different clerical approaches to commercial brewing by married women. In Woolhope, the wives “disappeared” into the legal personalities of their husbands. In Ingatestone, wives were themselves cited.
Second, clear instances of husband-wife substitution are found in many series of ale presentments. Consider, for example, four sets of ale presentments from Ingatestone in 1382–83, as shown in table A.1. In June 1382, only women were named as brewers. Four months later, mostly men were named, and most of these were clearly cited in place of their wives. The substitution was most obvious in John Lay’s case, for the clerk began by writing “Margery” but then crossed it out and inserted “John.” Seven months after this shift, citations began to revert to their earlier pattern, a reversion completed by October 1383, when, as before, only women were cited for brewing. This example from Ingatestone is exceptionally clear, but it is not unusual; in the brewing presentments of many courts, husbands were clearly substituted for their wives on some occasions.
Third, householder-focused presentments of brewers accord with our understanding of the household economy in these centuries. On the one hand, economic activities were not so individualized that we can absolutely say that wives brewed and husbands did not; as discussed more fully in chapter 2, members of most brewing households probably shared the burdens of the trade, even though in the early fourteenth century, wives often took primary responsibility. On the other hand, brewing was part of a domestic economy that was always managed, in the public eye at least, by a householder. This is why custom in Bristol dictated that the mayor consult with the “householders of Brewers” (that is, in most cases, their husbands) whenever dearth created high prices for malt.16 This tradition of “householder responsibility” reflected the real dynamics of economic power in most working households. Husbands, quite simply, exercised authority over the economic activities, including brewing, of their wives, children, and servants. For example, the Wakefield (Yorkshire) court noted in 1374 that Thomas de Westerton had refused to allow his wife to sell ale as she should have done. Apparently, she did the brewing and selling, but he retained final say over her business.17 For another example, in Herstmonceux (Sussex) in 1386, William Colkyn requested an extension on a debt of iod. that he owed to Robert Baker; he planned to pay the debt after his wife had brewed and sold ale.18 Apparently, she managed the commercial brewing in their household, but he controlled all profits from it. Even though wives brewed for profit in many medieval households, their work was pursued under the economic authority of their husbands. As a result, householder-focused presentments reflect more the subordinate status of women s work in the household economy than actual brewing by men. Although Denise Marlere brewed in late fourteenth-century Bridgwater, it was her husband Nicholas who was usually cited for brewing infractions.19
Table A.1 Brewing Presentments in Ingatestone, 1382–83
| 2 June 1382 | 4 October 1382 | 18 May 1383 | 22 October 1383 |
| Ibota Jordan | Isabella Jordan | Isabella Jordan | |
| Joan Bret | Joan Bret | Joan Bret | Joan Bret |
| Alice Bailiff | |||
| Alice Lavenham | John Lavenham | Alice Lavenham | Alice Lavenham |
| Beatrice Turner | Richard Turner | Beatrice Turner | Beatrice Turner |
| Emma Paty | Richard Paty | Richard Paty | Emma Paty |
| Margery Lay | John Lay | Margery Lay | Margery Lay |
| Alice White | Alice White | Alice White | |
| Agnes Stace | Agnes Stace | Agnes Stace | Agnes Stace |
| John Baker | Agnes Baker | ||
| Agnes Shering |
Source: Essex Record Office, D/DP, M 23. As usual, I have standardized spelling.
Fourth, householder-focused presentments also reflect legal practices. Under the common law, a wife was firmly subordinated to her husband, who acted essentially as her guardian in all legal matters, and this principle was maintained, although somewhat less consistently, in the customary practices of local courts. In many matters (not just economic matters), a husband could act in the place of his wife in court; he could appear in civil suits on her behalf, he could answer for her petty crimes, and he could sell or lease her land. A wife was, in short, usually treated in courts as “wholly within [her husband’s] power.”20 In London in 1368, for example, one husband initiated a suit for debts owed for ale purchased from his wife, and another husband sued a lessor who had failed to repair a brewhouse rented by his wife.21 The “disappearing wife” of some assize presentments is, then, only one manifestation of the general legal tendency to subsume wives into the legal personalities of their husbands.22
We can, therefore, be confident that most presentments that list male brewers are, in fact, citing husbands in the place of their wives. This conclusion raises, however, several further questions. Why were some presentments householder-focused and others individual-focused? In some cases, the cause is clear, for clerical idiosyncrasies sometimes determined how brewsters were cited. In Exeter in the late 1340s, for example, a series of different clerks enrolled ale presentments in a variety of different ways.23 In other cases, the cause is obscure. I have no explanation for the predominance of householder-focused presentments in the southwest (aside from the possibility that clerks in this region shared a common training that particularly emphasized the legal responsibilities of householders).24
What about men who did actually brew for profit? How will we identify them if we assume always that a cited man was, in fact, a stand-in for his wife? This problem has two parts. On the one hand, brewing by bachelors might be obscured by this assumption, but as discussed in chapter 2, this is an unlikely possibility. Since so few men appear in individual-focused presentments, it seems that few men without wives brewed (especially before the Black Death). On the other hand, brewing by married men might also be obscured. This possibility is buttressed by a few cases in which shifts from individual-focused to householder-focused presentments might reflect real changes in the sexual division of labor. Most urban presentments are householder-focused from a very early date, raising the possibility that the relatively more developed ale markets of towns attracted more male labor than in the countryside. In some rural jurisdictions, shifts toward reporting more husbands than in the past were sometimes associated with economic change and expansion. In Kibworth Harcourt (Leicestershire), husbands were cited with increasing frequency in the 1350s and 1360s, decades when the ale industry was beginning to expand and become more profitable. In Wye (Kent) in the 1430s, husbands were cited more frequently in the fair-time courts than at other times of the year; within a few years, they were cited almost to the exclusion of their wives. In numerous villages, once common brewers began to appear in the courts, they were usually husbands, not wives. Since in all these instances, citational shifts were associated with economic expansion, it is possible that husbands were becoming more involved in brewing than in the past. This is an intriguing possibility, but it cannot, quite simply, be confirmed in other sources. In the text, I have sometimes raised these possibilities, but I have not treated them as confirmed findings. Given the many factors that could encourage clerks to cite husbands for brewing by their wives, economic change is only one of many possible explanations.25 And given the difficulty of distinguishing in assize presentments how a woman and her husband might have divided the work of commercial brewing between them, I have turned to other sources (such as the gild records used in chapter 4) to reconstruct marital brewing.
Do these presentments provide reliable information about marital status?
The answer to this question is sometimes yes, sometimes no, and always only approximately. The different types of presentments offer three different sorts of opportunities for identifying marital status. First, householder-focused presentments can provide useful information about not-married brewsters since women cited in their own names in such listings usually lived without husbands. In other words, we can assume that Alice de Pokemore, Alice de Stonhull, and Idonea de Stonhull were not-married brewsters in Woolhope because, if they had been married, their husbands would have been cited in their stead. Second, individual-focused presentments do not as reliably provide the opposite sort of information, that is, information about unmarried men. Men cited in individual-focused presentments, such as William Morisce of Ingatestone, might have been bachelors who worked in commercial brewing, but they also were often husbands cited idiosyncratically for their wives. The difference between these two options must be determined on a case-by-case basis. In Brigstock before 1348, for example, every man presented by the aletasters was married to a brewster. In the case of William Morisce, however, no wife has been found. Third, on a few occasions, individual-focused presentments so distinguish wives, daughters, and widows that the marital status of women can also be determined. It is likely (but not certain), for example, that Alice Geroldis, Beatrice Jurdonys, Margery Coppyngho, and Margery Forys were either singlewomen or widows, for they (unlike the other women cited in Ingatestone) were not identified as wives. In sum, bachelors are difficult to distinguish in these records, but relative proportions of married and not-married women can often be approximated with confidence.
It is important to emphasize that two separate considerations arise in attempts to differentiate married and not-married women. Customs of assize presentment, whether focued on householders or individuals, are critical. But customs of citing women in general, whether in assize presentments or in other venues, are also critical. As a general rule, married women were identified not only by forename and surname but also by their marital relationship. For example, Agnes the wife of Henry Kroyl the younger was never identified in the Brigstock court roll as merely “Agnes Kroyl”. Instead, in her 27 appearances before the court as a married woman, she was invariably identified as “Alice the wife of Henry Kroyl” or simply as “the wife of Henry Kroyl.”26 Needless to say, wives were occasionally cited by forename and surname alone, but they generally were not. In contrast, not-married women were sometimes identified as daughters or widows of specific men, but they were usually cited by forename and surname alone. As a result, the determination that Alice de Pokemore and other women so cited in Woolhope were not married springs from two sources: first, the householder-focused presentments in which they are named and, second, the very way that they are named (that is, without stated marital linkage).
Nevertheless, two other factors complicate easy assumptions about womens marital status from assize presentments: some married women were presented like not-married women, and some not-married women were presented like married women. Let us begin by considering the married women who are hidden among presentments of apparent singlewomen and widows. Helena Graham has suggested, based on her reconstitution of the population of Alrewas (Staffordshire) in the mid-fourteenth century, that even on manors where husbands were normally named in the place of their wives, some wives were, in fact, named as brewsters. Graham’s data suggest that about one-third of the women named in the householder-focused presentments of Alrewas were married. Moreover, she has argued that married brewsters from poorer households were especially likely to be cited in their own names (presumably since their husbands had no other business that brought them to court). If Graham is right, women listed in householder-focused citations were mostly not-married but not invariably so.27
At its furthest extent, Graham’s data would suggest that most women (two of every three) cited by name in householder-focused presentments were, in fact, not married. But this “worst case” is quite unlikely. First, Graham confused wives and widows; two of the four poor brewsters whom she identified as wives cited with their own names were, in fact, widows.28 Second, Graham focused closely on only 7 brewsters out of a total of 67 by-industrial brewers, but trends within the larger group show that socioeconomic status cannot account for the occasional citation of a married women by her own name.29 In the end, Graham’s revised data show that of 11 brewsters cited by their own name in Alrewas, 6 were single, 3 were widowed, and only 2 were married.30
In short, Graham’s suggestion that one-third of the women named as brewsters in householder-focused presentments were, in fact, married, must be revised downward. What do sources from other communities suggest? They suggest that householder-focused presentments do, indeed, occasionally include married women cited by their own names, but that these instances are infrequent, often easily identifiable, and not necessarily linked to socioeconomic status. To begin with, wives were usually cited as wives on those rare occasions when they were included in householder-focused listings. In the Leicester cannemol for 1287–88, for example, the 200 brewers included 161 men, 7 wives (cited as wives) and 3 2 other women (the sex of 1 brewer could not be determined). Of these 32 women, 3 were identified as widows and 2 more were identified as sisters of named men; the remaining 27 were identified by forename and surname alone. Were any of these 27 women really wives? Probably not, for none could be traced (by coincidence of surname and quarter of residence) to possible husbands in the tallage of 1286 (a tallage that included households of quite modest economic standing).31 The Leicester cannemol suggests, pace Graham, that few wives were “hidden” among brewsters cited in householder-focused lists; when wives were included in such lists, they were usually identified as married women.
Moreover, socioeconomic status does not explain most of the relatively uncommon instances of wives cited in householder-focused lists. In Leicester, the 7 wives listed in the 1287–88 cannemol, rather than being exceptionally poor, came from families of all economic statuses.32 In York in 1304, the 70 brewers presented included 49 men, 10 wives cited as wives, and 11 women cited without indication of marital status. Instead of being poor, the 10 wives named on their own account seem to have been more privileged than the average brewster.33 In Iver before the plague, the 319 brewers presented included 197 men, 15 wives (most cited as wives), and 107 other women. Again, the 15 wives named on their own account were not noticeably poorer than others but instead came from both wealthy and poor families in the village.34
It seems that socioeconomic status might have prompted the citing of wives in some householder-focused presentments, but it is just one of many possible explanations. Probably just as important (if not more) was the fragility of marriage in the medieval countryside. Because considerable numbers of marriages ended or failed before the death of either spouse, many women who were “wives” in the eyes of church and manor lived as if they were not married. These “wives” had left their husbands or been left themselves, they were married to men who never returned from journeys or wars or pilgrimages, or they cared for husbands incapacitated by illness or injury. These private accommodations to the public institution of marriage are very hard to re-create from a distance of some 600 years, but we know that many marriages functionally ended while they remained legally valid.35 In trying to distinguish wives from singlewomen and widows, therefore, we must remember that some apparent “wives” might have, in fact, acted as the real heads of their households. This was certainly the case for Joan Cole of Lullington (Sussex). Her husband, William, had been presented as a brewer in the local court for many years when, in 1443, she began to replace him as the legally responsible brewer in the household. Within a few years, Joan was presented for brewing much more often than William. To be sure, Joan was still married to a living husband, but he was not well; in 1454, he was excused from attending court because of his advanced age and physical weakness.36 As this case suggests, among the “wives” who seem to have been cited as not-married women in Alrewas and elsewhere were probably some women (like Joan Cole of Lullington) whose husbands were incapacitated, away, or otherwise not acting as householders. These women might have been married, but they did not live as did other married women. Since they acted as householders and fended for themselves without the help of husbands, their true marital status fell somewhere between being either married or not married.
Now, let us consider the opposite problem. What about the not-married women who were sometimes cited as if they were married? P. J. P. Goldberg has pointed out that many of the women identified as wives in the mid-fifteenth-century lists of brewers in York were, in fact, widows. This was also true of wives cited in York in the 1560s.37 Today, we identify wife with “married woman,” but in the fourteenth through sixteenth centuries, wife could also mean “housewife” or “mistress of a household.” With this meaning, it could easily be attached to a widow, as was clearly done in some cases at York. As discussed in chapters 4 and 6, 1 have also found isolated instances of such usages in London (in the gild quarterage for 1500–1501) and Oxford (in a few cases found in the early fourteenth-century assize lists). Yet this sort of slippage (of widows into wives) seems to have been quite rare, probably even rarer than slippage in the other direction (of married women into not-married women).
In short, it is not possible to create firmly discrete groups of married and not-married brewsters; some wives are hidden among apparently not-married women and some widows are hidden among apparent wives. There seems to have been more of the former than the latter, and therefore, estimates of not-married brewsters based on assize presentments (especially as found in chapter 3) probably include a small proportion of married women who could not be so identified. To be sure, many estimates found in chapter 3 and elsewhere are based on sources, especially poll tax records, from which singlewomen and widows can be more firmly identified. But estimates based on assize presentments incorporate some slippage. In other words, we have good reason to treat Alice de Pokemore as a not-married brewster, for she appeared in householder-focused presentments and she was cited without reference to marital status. But she might have been married, a fact that is either entirely unrecoverable or recoverable only through a family reconstitution for Woolhope. Needless to say, it has not been possible to undertake family reconstitutions for Woolhope and all the other communities included in this study.
What does this slippage mean in terms of analyses of not-married and married brewsters in chapters 2, 3 and elsewhere? The extent to which wives were included among counts of apparently not-married women not only is impossible to estimate but also probably varied according to place, clerical custom, and time. As a result, I have not attempted to account for slippage; when I have reported, for example, that 46 Norwich brewers in 1288 were not married, I am reporting data taken from a householder-focused list, and I have counted as a not-married woman every women who was (1) identified by her own name and (2) not identified as a wife. Graham’s estimate that wives accounted for one-third of apparent not-married women is clearly too high, but even if it is taken as a worst-case possibility, it is an estimate that would not undercut the observations of this study.38 Figures given in chapter 2 suggest that in the early fourteenth century, 1 in every 6 urban brewsters and 1 in every 4 rural brewsters might have been not married; if these estimates are off by one-third, perhaps 1 of every 10 urban brewsters and 1 in every 6 rural brewsters was not married. In both estimates, single and widowed brewsters accounted for a significant minority of all brewers. When the proportion of brewing done by not-married women fell in a village like Stockton from 20 percent in the late thirteenth century to 11 percent after the Black Death to none at all by the late fifteenth century, the fact that some married women might have been hidden in these numbers is interesting but irrelevant to the main trend. Precision would be best, but precision is not possible with the extant records. Given the inherent uncertainties of identifying brewing by not-married women, the discussion in chapter 3 focuses on trends strong and broad enough to accommodate considerable slippage.
II. The Survey of Assize Presentments in Rural Communities
In surveying legal presentments under the assize of ale, I relied extensively on studies of other historians who have worked with the records of specific manors. But I also undertook further archival investigation, seeking out communities with long runs of surviving court rolls and attempting to examine communities in as wide a geographical range as possible. To some extent, these two requirements—extensive documentation and wide geographic distribution—are mutually exclusive, for northern and western districts are not so well served by surviving court rolls as the south and east. As far as possible, I also sought communities subject to only a single manorial jurisdiction (so that the assize presentments found in the records of that jurisdiction would cover all brewing in the village or villages within the manor). After cursorily examining the records of dozens of jurisdictions, I settled on the following 19 manorial jurisdictions as providing the best coverage (combined with information available from published studies) of both time and region. Some of these jurisdictions—especially those of Alciston (which included Lullington) and Wakefield—were very large, incorporating within them many rural communities. In a few cases, I examined all available records, but in most cases, I sampled the extant materials, taking a cluster of rolls as representative of a larger period (usually, I took samples from the late thirteenth century, early fourteenth century, late fourteenth century, and so on). In most cases (the only exceptions are Brigstock, Houghton-cum-Wylon, and Iver), I continued to work with the extant records until they either ceased entirely or ceased to offer valuable information about brewing.
In citing these materials in notes, I have used one of two conventions. On occasion, I have offered full archival citations (especially when citing a specific item). On most occasions, however, I have adopted a shorthand system, noting “Sample:” followed by the brief citations given in the left-hand column below. For example, material drawn from Alciston courts between 1275 and 1289 has been cited in footnotes as follows: Sample: Alciston, c. 1280.
In addition to collecting information from the assize presentments of these communities, I also consulted other materials (such as tax listings, custumals, and rentals). If used, these supplementary materials have been fully cited in the notes.
Alciston, Sussex
Sampled.
Presentments: Householder-focused presentments (although not invariably so). Frequency of brewing usually noted. Brewers were usually presented twice a year.
Brewing by not-married women: Roughly one-third of presentments were to not-married women until the fifteenth century (when they constituted only 3 percent c. 1425 and 9 percent c. 1470). By c. 1525, no not-married women (with the rare exception of a widow) were cited for brewing.
Professionalization: Alciston manor covered several villages, and commercial brewing in Lullington and Alfriston was more developed than in other areas. In Lullington and Alfriston, commercial brewing was distinguished from an early date by, on the one hand, the presence of common brewers and tipplers and, on the other hand, the relative absence of not-married women.
Beer: Although there might be earlier references in unexamined courts, the first mention of beer I have found dates from 1488. By the early 1520s, ale and beer were supervised as completely distinct entities in the courts, and it appears that beer was sold but not regularly brewed in the village until 1526 (when Richard Colville began brewing it on a regular basis).
Long-term licenses: A handful of licenses were purchased in the mid-fifteenth century either to avoid assize amercement or to avoid payment of tolcester.
Tolls on brewing: Tolcester (also sometimes called “canale” and rated at 2 gallons of the best ale from the brewing) was levied in Lullington, Alfriston, and Telton but not elsewhere. (Perhaps in compensation, amercements under the assize tended to be higher in parts of the manor not subject to tolcester.)
East Sussex Record Office
| Alciston, c. 1280 | SAS/G18/1–4 (courts, 1275–89) |
| Alciston, c. 1325 | SAS/G18/5–6 (courts, 1325) |
| Alciston, c. 1370 | SAS/G18/28 (selected courts, 1369–71) |
| Alciston, c. 1425 | SAS/G18/43 (selected courts, 1425–28) |
| Alciston, c. 1470 | SAS/G18/48 (selected courts, 1469–72) |
| Alciston, c. 1525 | SAS/G18/55 (selected courts, 1522–24) |
Brigstock, Northamptonshire
Surveyed in full for 1287–1348 and for the Brigstock portion of the manor only for 1411–21.
Presentments: Individual-focused. Aletasters presented their findings every three weeks throughout the year.
Brewing by not-married women: Impossible to estimate from individual-focused presentments. Of the 38 by-industrial brewsters in the village before the Black Death, 5 might have been singlewomen, and another 5 brewed as both wives and widows.
Beer: Not mentioned in courts surveyed.
Long-term licenses: 48 in pre-plague courts.
Tolls on brewing: A few women were cited in early fifteenth-century courts for refusing to pay a “tollale.”
General observations: A general discussion of brewing in pre-plague Brigstock can be found in my Women in the Medieval English Countryside (Oxford, 1987), pp. 120–129.
Northamptonshire Record Office
Montagu Collection, Box X364A (courts, 1287–13 12)
Montagu Collection, Box X364B (courts, 13 13–30)
Montagu Collection, Box X365 (courts, 1330–48)
Montagu Collection, Box X366, bundle 5, items 5—8, and bundle 6, items 1–6 (courts, 1411–21)
Public Record Office
SC2 194/65 (courts, 1298–99)
Chedzoy, Somerset
Surveyed in full.
Presentments: Householder-focused. Frequency of brewing usually noted. Courts usually convened four times per year.
Brewing by not-married women: Before the Black Death, not-married brewsters accounted for as many as one-third of citations (in 1340), but their participation varied widely, and on the average, they accounted for 18 percent of brewing citations between 1329 and 1348. Although 23 percent of brewing presentments in 1349 named not-married women, their numbers fell in the next year to only 11 percent. Not-married women recovered some of their trade in the following years (by 1355, 17 percent of citations were to not-married women), but after 1355, their presence in brewing was negligible. In the late fourteenth century, not-married brewsters accounted for an average of only 6 percent of citations. In the early fifteenth century (data available only for 1405–13), not-married brewsters constituted 5 percent of citations. As a rule, not-married brewsters brewed with less frequency than married persons.
Professionalization: From the 1330s on, tipplers were occasionally noted. By the early fifteenth century, the number of brewers presented in any year had fallen to about one-third of previous levels: an average of only 26 per year rather than an average of 88 in the early fourteenth century.
Beer: Not mentioned.
Long-term licenses: None.
Tolls on brewing: None.
British Library
Add. Charters 15903–16102 (courts, from October 1329 to August 1413)
Add. Charter 16103 (court, for April 1632)
Public Record Office
SC2 198/19 (courts, from September 1379 to July 1380)
Chester-le-Street, Durham39
Surveyed in full 1348–1477 and sampled thereafter. The courts for the manor of Chester-le-Street are included among the manorial materials for the bishopric of Durham. I examined only the courts for Chester-le-Street manor and, within those courts, usually only the presentments for Chester-le-Street proper.
Presentments: Usually individual-focused in early courts but not invariably so. In the early fifteenth century, presentments became householder-focused. Presentments were recorded twice a year.
Brewing by not-married women: Impossible to determine for the fourteenth century. In most fifteenth- and sixteenth-century courts (that is, after presentments became householder-focused), not-married women brewed infrequently; most presentments either named only men or included one woman among many (usually six-eight) men.
Beer: Not mentioned in courts surveyed.
Long-term licenses: None.
Tolls on brewing: None.
General observations: In the 1350s, some brewers in the Whickham section of the manor were amerced for refusing either to brew or to sell ale, and some others were amerced for buying ale in Newcastle to sell in Whickham.
Public Record Office
Durham 3/12 (courts, 1348 – 62)
Durham 3/13 (courts, 1388 – 1403)
Durham 3/14 (courts, 1405–24)
Durham 3/15 (courts, 1438–56)
Durham 3/16 (courts, 1457–76)
Durham 3/18 (selected courts, 1483–93)
Durham 3/20 (selected courts, 1502–07)
Durham 3/22 (selected courts, 1523–29)
Durham 3/23 (selected courts, 1529–59)
Cranborne, Dorset
Sampled.
Presentments: Householder-focused. Frequency of brewing noted. Brewers were presented every three weeks, but by the late fifteenth century, many courts contain no presentments under the assize.
Brewing by not-married women: The activity of not-married brewsters varied erratically but fell over time: 29 percent of presentments c. 1330, 3 percent c. 1380, 16 percent c. 1420, and none c. 1480.
Professionalization: By the late fifteenth century, only a handful of brewers were active (often only one in each village of the manor). In Cranborne itself, for example, where about eight brewers had worked c. 1330, only one worked c. 1480.
Beer: Not mentioned in courts sampled.
Long-term licenses: None.
Tolls on brewing: In the courts c. 1480, a “custom of ale” due to the lord for brewing (variously levied at 1
d., 2d., or 3d.) was noted.
Marquess of Salisbury, Hatfield House
| Cranborne, c. 1330 | Courts, 1328–29 |
| Cranborne, c. 1380 | Courts, 1378–79 |
| Cranborne, c. 1420 | Courts, 1421–22 |
| Cranborne, c. 1480 | Courts, 1482–83 |
Crowle, Lincolnshire
Sampled.
Presentments: Variously focused on husbands and wives. Initially, presentments were made at every three-weekly court, but by c. 1470, brewers were presented only at semiannual views of frankpledge.
Brewing by not-married women: Circa 1370 and c. 1420, when presentments were householder-focused, not-married women accounted for 27 percent and 9 percent of the presentments, respectively. Marital status is more difficult to infer from the citations c. 1470, but perhaps 17 percent of the brewsters were not married. Circa 1520, all brewers were married women (with the exception of one widow).
Professionalization: Professionalization proceeded slowly in Crowle, where even in the early sixteenth century, large numbers of brewers were serving the manor. By c. 1470, brewers also often baked for profit. No tipplers were cited in the courts examined.
Beer: Not mentioned in courts sampled.
Long-term licenses: None.
Tolls on brewing: An ale toll (tolnetum cervisie) was mentioned in the courts c. 1320.
Lincolnshire Archives Office
| Crowle, c. 1320 | CM 1/7 (courts, 1318–19) |
| Crowle, c. 1370 | CM 1/25 (courts, 1370–71) |
| Crowle, c. 1420 | CM 1/62–63 (courts, 1419–22) |
| Crowle, c. 1470 | CM 1/122 (courts, 1470–71) |
| CM 1/124 (courts, 1471–72) | |
| Crowle, c. 1520 | CM 1/179–180 (courts, 1518–20) |
Earl Soham, Suffolk
Surveyed in full.
Presentments: Variously focused on husbands and wives. Brewers usually presented in only one court per year.
Brewing by not-married women: Impossible to estimate from individual-focused presentments.
Professionalization: The average number of amercements per year fell from nearly 9 in the early fourteenth century to less than 2 in the early sixteenth century. Brewers also often baked for profit. Tipplers were cited sporadically from the earliest courts on. From the 1480s, brewers were usually cited as common brewers.
Beer: Not mentioned.
Long-term licenses: None.
Tolls on brewing: None.
Suffolk Record Office
V5/18/1.1 (courts, 1320–62)
V5/18/1.2 (courts, 1352–76)
V5/18/1.3 (courts, 1377–99)
V5/18/1.4 (courts, 1413–22)
Vs/18/1.5 (courts, 1423–60)
V5/18/1.6 (courts, 1460–85)
V5/18/1.7 (courts, 1485–1509)
V5/18/1.8 (courts, 1511–46)
Hindolveston, Norfolk
Sampled.
Presentments: Variously focused on husbands and wives. Brewers usually presented in only one annual leet.
Brewing by not-married women: Usually impossible to estimate. Of 33 citations to brewers c. 1265, 9 were to women (27 percent).
Professionalization: The average number of amercements per year fell from 6 in the late thirteenth century to 1.3 in the early sixteenth century. In the late fourteenth century, presentments often stated the length of time brewed—one week, one month, quarter or half year, or commonly. By the early fifteenth century, a handful of women were presented each year for brewing commonly. In many cases, households were involved in both commercial baking and commercial brewing.
Beer: Not mentioned in courts sampled.
Long-term licenses: None.
Tolls on brewing: None.
General observations: In the earliest courts, presentments included regraters (usually of bread but occasionally also of ale); such presentments ceased by the mid-fifteenth century.
Norfolk Record Office
| Hindolveston, c. 1265 | DCN 60/19/1 (courts, 1257–63) DCN 60/19/2 (courts, 1267 —71) |
| Hindolveston, c. 1320 | DCN 60/19/3 (selected courts, 1318–24) DCN 60/19/4 (courts, 1320–21) |
| Hindolveston, c. 1380 | DCN 60/19/6 (courts, 1376–77) DCN 60/19/7 (courts, 1377–81) DCN 60/19/8 (courts, 1381–82) |
| Hindolveston, c. 1420 | DCN 60/19/22 (courts, 1413–21) |
| Hindolveston, c. 1455 | DCN 60/19/24 (selected courts, 1453–57) |
| Hindolveston, c. 1500 | DCN 60/19/27 (selected courts, 1496–99) |
| Hindolveston, c. 1530 | DCN 60/19/40 (courts, 1527–28) DCN 60/19/41 (courts, 1528–29) DCN 60/19/42 (courts, 1530–31) DCN 60/19/43 (courts, 1530–31) DCN 60/19/44 (courts, 1531–32) DCN 60/19/45 (courts, 1532–33) |
| Hindolveston, c. 1550 | DCN 60/19/58 (selected courts, 1547–53) |
Houghton-cum-Wyton, Huntingdonshire
Surveyed in full for 1290–1349.
Presentments: Individual-focused. Brewers were presented twice a year.
Brewing by not-married women: Impossible to estimate from individual-focused presentments.
Beer: Not mentioned in courts surveyed.
Long-term licenses: None.
Tolls on brewing: None.
General observations: Data on brewing presentments on this manor are reported briefly in my Women in the Medieval English Countryside and more fully in my Ph.D. dissertation, “Gender, Family and Community: A Comparative Study of the English Peasantry, 1287–1349” (University of Toronto, 1981), especially pp. 320–330.
British Library
Add. Charters 34338, 39597, 39756, 39586, 34324, 34897–98, 39761 (courts, 1290–1331)
Public Record Office
SC2 179/5, 7, 9–13, 15–16, 19–22, 25–26, 30, 32–33 (courts, 1288–1349)
Ingatestone, Essex
Surveyed in full from 1292 to 1624.
Presentments: Individual-focused. Brewers were presented on a twice-yearly basis.
Brewing by not-married women: Impossible to estimate from individual-focused presentments.
Professionalization: Alesellers active as early as the 1320s. From c. 1400, only a few brewers (usually fewer than four) worked in Ingatestone. In the early sixteenth century (c. 1530s), the victualing trades became professionalized and male-dominated. For example, female alesellers were replaced by males (a shift that was accompanied by the replacement of an old term for alesellers, gannokers, with a new one, tipplers). In some cases, husband-wife substitution explains this change, but in other cases, men genuinely seem to have been beginning to sell ale more than before. Unfortunately, recorded information about the most important victualing trade in this study—commercial brewing—was scarce by this period.
Beer: First mentioned in 1525.
Long-term licenses: None.
General observations: Amercements of brewers started in 1292 and began to wane after the first decade of the sixteenth century. Thereafter, although very little information about brewing was recorded in these courts, other victualing trades were carefully regulated. In general, these courts provide extensive information about a variety of victualing trades, not only brewing but also butchering, baking, fishmongering, tippling, and the like. In the late sixteenth century, when brewers were rarely mentioned, it seems likely that many tipplers in Ingatestone were buying their ale (and beer) elsewhere and that the only brewing in the community was being done by persons identified in the courts as “innholders.”
Essex Record Officex
D/DP M 1–102 (courts, 1279–1624)
Iver, Buckinghamshire
Surveyed in full for 1287–1349.
Presentments: Householder-focused. Brewers were presented every three weeks.
Brewing by not-married women: Not-married women accounted for 34 percent of brewers.
Beer: Not mentioned in courts surveyed.
Long-term licenses: None.
Tolls on brewing: None.
General observations: Data on brewing presentments on this manor are reported briefly in my Women in the Medieval English Countryside and more fully in my dissertation, “Gender, Family and Community,” especially pp. 262–274.
Buckinghamshire Record Office
D/BASM45/1 (courts, 1332–76)
St Georges Chapel, Windsor Castle
XV.55.1 (courts, 1287–88)
XV.55.3–6 (courts, 1288–33)
IV.B. 1 (extracts from manorial records)
Norton Canon, Herefordshire
Sampled.
Presentments: Householder-focused. Early presentments occurred on a monthly basis, later twice a year. Frequency of brewing often noted.
Brewing by not-married women: Not-married women accounted for about one-fifth of brewing citations in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, but they were not cited at all in the post-plague samples.
Professionalization: The number of brewers varied greatly but generally fell, from an average of 4.3 per court in 1280 to 2 per court c. 1475.
Beer: Not mentioned in courts sampled.
Long-term licenses: None.
Tolls on brewing: None.
Hereford Cathedral Library
| Norton Canon, c. 1280 | R892 (courts, 1282–83) |
| Norton Canon, c. 1330 | R908 (courts, 1332–33) |
| Norton Canon, c. 1375 | R931 (courts, 1372–74) |
| Norton Canon, c. 1410 | R948 (courts, 1410–11) |
| Norton Canon, c. 1475 | R966 (courts, 1472–74) |
Preston-on-Wye, Herefordshire
Sampled.
Presentments: Householder-focused. In early courts, presentments occurred about once a month, but they occurred only every few months by the late fifteenth century. Frequency of brewing often noted.
Brewing by not-married women: The proportion of not-married women cited for brewing varied radically and in no clear pattern: c. 1275, 14 percent; c. 1320, 33 percent; c. 1366 and c. 1395 (combined), 9 percent; c. 1425, 21 percent; c. 1465, 17 percent. The fifteenth-century samples are too small to provide reliable data.
Professionalization: The number of brewers presented per court varied but fell from about a dozen in the early fourteenth century to only three by the late fifteenth century.
Beer: Not mentioned in courts sampled.
Long-term licenses: None.
Tolls on brewing: None.
Hereford Cathedral Library
| Preston-on-Wye, c. 1275 | R824 (courts, 1276–77) |
| Preston-on-Wye, c. 1320 | R833 (courts, 1322–33) |
| Preston-on-Wye, c. 1365 | R845 (courts, 1363–64) |
| Preston-on-Wye, c. 1395 | R853 (courts, 1393–94) |
| Preston-on-Wye, c. 1425 | R857 (courts, 1426–27) |
| Preston-on-Wye, c. 1465 | R862 (courts, 1463) |
Scalby, Yorkshire
Sampled.
Presentments: Individual-focused presentments. Frequency of brewing often noted. Presentments were to be made on a three-weekly basis but often were not.
Brewing by not-married women: Impossible to estimate from individual-focused presentments.
Professionalization: Common brewers noted from c. 1465. In courts c. 1505, some brewers also baked bread for profit.
Beer: Not mentioned in courts sampled.
Long-term licenses: None.
Tolls on brewing: None.
General observations: By c. 1505, a few men were cited alongside female brewers (and they also often both brewed and baked for profit).
Public Record Office
| Scalby, c. 1320 | DL 30 128/1917 (courts, 1319–20) |
| Scalby, c. 1340 | DL 30 128/1918 (selected courts, 1338–46) |
| Scalby, c. 1380 | DL 30 128/1923 (selected courts, 1378–82) |
| Scalby, c. 1420 | DL 30 128/1926 (courts, 1417–18) DL 30 128/1927 (courts, 1422–23) |
| Scalby, c. 1465 | DL 30 128/1934 (courts, 1464–71) |
| Scalby, c. 1505 | DL 30 128/1939 (courts, 1504–1505) |
Stockton, Wiltshire
Surveyed in full, 128 1–1544.
Presentments: Householder-focused. Presentments occurred annually or twice a year. Frequency of brewing often noted, especially in earlier courts.
Brewing by not-married women: Brewing by not-married women fell steadily: 20 percent of citations, 1281–99; 13 percent, 1306–44; 11 percent, 1349–99; 6 percent, 1400–47; none in the late fifteenth century. In the early sixteenth century, one women, the widow of a male brewer, was presented for brewing.
Professionalization: Until c. 1415, each presentment usually included a dozen brewers or more. Thereafter, fewer and fewer brewers were presented, and by the late fifteenth century, often only one or two common brewers were named.
Beer: Not mentioned.
Long-term licenses: None.
Tolls on brewing: None.
British Library
Add. Charters 24330–24384 (courts, 1332–1530)
Add. Charters 24716–24717 (court, 1384)
Add. Charter 24717 (court, 1391)
Wiltshire Record Office
108/1–13 (courts, 1339–92)
906/SC 1–24 (courts, 1287–1573)
Winchester Cathedral Library
Courts for 1281–82, 1290–91, 1292–93, 1295–96, 1296–97, 1298–99, 1306–1307, 1308–1309, 1313–14, 1322–23, 1330–31, 1349, 1350, 1362, 1365, 1366, 1376
Sutton, Cambridgeshire
Sampled.
Presentments: Usually individual-focused, until c. 1470 (when presentments became householder-focused). Brewers presented at annual leet in autumn.
Brewing by not-married women: Impossible to estimate for most periods. Circa 1290 and c. 1320 (when many brewsters were identified explicitly as married women), not-married brewsters accounted for 45 percent and 27 percent of citations, respectively.
Professionalization: In the sample c. 1470 (when presentments shifted from wives to husbands), two other new trends are apparent: (1) almost all brewers also baked for profit, and (2) alesellers began to work in the village.
Beer: Not mentioned in courts sampled.
Long-term licenses: None.
Tolls on brewing: None.
Muniments of the Dean and Chapter of Ely, Cambridge University Library
| The court rolls for Sutton are boxed in EDC 7/3. Although the rolls are labeled with dates and/or regnal years, they are not individually cataloged. | |
| Sutton, c. 1290 | Roll for 1291–93 (courts, 1292–93) |
| Sutton, c. 1320 | Roll for 11 & 12 Edward II (courts, 1317–18) Roll for 15 & 16 Edward II (courts, 1321) |
| Sutton, c. 1370 | Roll for 43–48 Edward III (selected courts, 1369–74) |
| Sutton, c. 1420 | Roll for Henry V (selected courts, 1419–22) |
| Sutton, c. 1470 | Roll for 11 & 12 Edward IV (selected courts, 1471–72) Roll for 13–16 Edward IV (selected courts, 1473) |
| Sutton, c. 1520 | Roll for Henry VIII (selected courts, 1520–22) |
Wakefield, Yorkshire
Sampled.
Presentments: Usually individual-focused but not invariably so. As a rule, brewers were presented at the twice-annual tourns. Presentments sometimes noted both the frequency of brewing and the price of ale sold.
Brewing by not-married women: Married women were often identified as such, enabling a rough estimate of brewing by not-married women. These estimates suggest that perhaps one-third of brewing citations were to not-married women in the late thirteenth century, one-quarter to one-fifth in the fourteenth century, and one-tenth thereafter.
Beer: Not mentioned in courts sampled.
Long-term licenses: None.
Tolls on brewing: None.
General observations: In the fifteenth century, persons were amerced for holding helpales (that is, drinking parties held to raise cash for a needy person). Supervision of the ale trade declined after c. 1480. Unlike many other jurisdictions, women were cited in the Wakefield courts (especially in the fifteenth century) for other victualing offenses, for example, baking and butchering.
| Wakefield, c. 1275 | William Paley Baildon, ed., Court rolls of the manor of Wake field, vol. 1 (1274–1297), Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 29 (1901) (selected courts, 1274–77) |
| Wakefield, c. 1325 | J. W. Walker, ed., Court rolls of the manor of Wakefield, vol. 5 (1322–1331), Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 109 (1945) (selected courts, 1323–25) |
Yorkshire Archaeological Society
| Wakefield, c. 1370 | MD225/1/96, 97, and 99, rolls for 1370–7 1, 1371–72, and 1373–74 |
| Wakefield, c, 1425 | MD225/1/147/1 and 2, 148/1 and 2, 149/1 and 2, rolls for 1421–22, 1422–23, 1423–24 |
| Wakefield, c. 1475 | MD 225/1/ 197–199, rolls for 1471–72, 1472–73, H73–74 |
| Wakefield, c. 1520 | MD 225/1/246, roll for 1520–21 |
Woolhope, Herefordshire
Sampled.
Presentments: Householder-focused. Frequency of brewing often noted. Presentments made in courts held about once a month (or less).
Brewing by not-married women: Not-married women constituted about 15 percent of brewers from c. 1290 to c. 1380. Data thereafter are unreliable.
Beer: Not mentioned in courts sampled.
Long-term licenses: None.
Tolls on brewing: None.
General observations: Effective supervision of the ale trade ceased quite early in the fifteenth century.
Hereford Cathedral Library
| Woolhope, c. 1290 | R747 (courts, 1291–92) |
| Woolhope, c. 1325 | R756 (courts, 1326–27) |
| Woolhope, c. 1380 | R768 (courts, 1380–81) |
| Woolhope, c. 1410 | R776 (courts, 1409–10) |
| Woolhope, c. 1485 | R782 (courts, 1486–87) |
Wye, Kent
Sampled.
Presentments: Individual-focused from c. 1311 to c. 1420, but earlier presentments (c. 1285) had no consistent pattern, and later presentments became householder-focused (over the course of the 1430s). Presentments were usually given in twice-annual views of frankpledge (also known as lawdays). The frequency of brewing and quality of ale were sometimes noted. By late fifteenth century, brewers were rarely presented.
Brewing by not-married women: Impossible to estimate from individual-focused presentments.
Professionalization: Common brewers and alesellers noted from the late fourteenth century.
Beer: Not mentioned in courts sampled.
Long-term licenses: None.
Tolls on brewing: None.
General observations: In the 1430s, when presentments shifted from individual-focused to householder-focused, the shift occurred first in the spring views associated with the annual fair. In other words, for several years, men were more frequently cited in the spring than in the autumn. They were also more likely to be cited for brewing commonly than women. At the same time, the number of brewers presented became skewed, with many more brewers presented in the spring than in the fall. That is, it is possible that the expansion of the ale trade associated with the spring fair at Wye began to attract greater male participation in the brewing industry.
Public Record Office
| Wye, c. 1285 | SC2 182/1 (selected courts, 1285–86) |
| Wye, c. 1310 | SC2 182/8 (selected court, 1311) |
| Wye, c. 1330 | SC2 182/11 – 12 (selected courts, 1331 – 32) |
| Wye, c. 1370 | SC2 182/20 (courts, 1370–72) |
| Wye, c. 1420 | SC 2 182/28–29 (courts, 1419–22) |
| Wye, c. 1435 | SC2 182/30–36 (selected courts, 1425–40) |
| Wye, c. 1445 | SC 2 182/37 (selected court, 1446) |
| Wye, c. 1465 | SC 2 182/45 (selected court, 1465) |
| Wye, c. 1490 | SC 2 182/48 (selected courts, 1480–92) |
| Wye, c. 1520 | SC2 182/58 (selected court, 1519) |
II. The Survey of Assize Presentments in Towns and Cities
In seeking urban lists of brewers, I followed a much less selective process than that used in the survey of rural communities: I used what I could find for all the major towns and added to the pool two market towns (Tamworth and Wallingford) for which exceptional information was available. As a rule, urban records yielded fewer lists of brewers and no runs of lists that could match the series available for some rural communities (with the exception of Tamworth).40 In addition, special jurisdictions limit the coverage found in some urban records. Listed here are only the major sets of assize presentments (or other similar lists) that were used in this study. In addition to these listings, I found many other sorts of useful records—for example, gild records or civic ordinances—both for the towns listed here and for others (such as Southampton). When I have used these other materials, I have provided full citations in the notes.
Leicester
In Leicester, brewers were supervised through a traditional ale toll known as cannemol. All extant cannemol lists were surveyed in full.
Presentments: Householder-focused (except for the 1562 list).
Brewing by not-married women: In 1287–88, not-married women accounted for 16 percent of brewers, and this proportion was roughly maintained through the early fourteenth century (in 1339, almost 20 percent of brewers were not-married women). In 1375–80, however, not-married women accounted for only 11 percent of brewers, and by the sixteenth century, they had even less presence in the trade. In 1520, 2 of 32 brewers were not-married women (6 percent), and in 1562, no not-married women were named at all. Thereafter, only a handful of not-married women, all widows, were cited for brewing.
Beer: Not mentioned in cannemol records specifically, but beer was mentioned in other Leicester records of the sixteenth century. In 1523, the city prohibited the use of hops in brewing, and in 1575, beer was included for the first time in pricing regulations.41
Tolls on brewing: See above.
Leicestershire Record Office
BRIII/7/1: Cannemol roll, c. 1260–70
BRIII/7/2: Cannemol roll, 1287–88
BRIII/7/3: Cannemol roll, c. 1300
BRIII/7/4: Cannemol roll, 1329
BRIII / 7 / 5: Cannemol roll, 1338
BRIII/7/6: Cannemol roll, 1339
BRIII/7/7: Cannemol roll, c. 1375–80
Public Record Office
DL 30/81/1111: Includes cannemol, 1529
DL 30/81 /1118: Includes cannemol, 1562
DL 30/82/ 1122: Includes cannemol, 1572
DL 30/82/ 1123: Includes cannemol, 1584
DL 30/82/1124: Cannemol, c. 1588
DL 30/82/1126: Cannemol, 1592
London
Assize presentments in London were probably made in the wardmotes, for which almost no records survive. In the only extant wardmote, no aletasters’ presentments are recorded (although the last membrane does include a list of tipplers). See CLRO, Presentments for Portsoken ward, 5–22 Edward IV and 23 Henry VII. In 1419–20, the city compiled a list of brewers, and this has been accurately printed in CLB I, pp. 233–235. This list is householder-focused. Of 290 heads of households reported in the city list for 1419–20, 21 were female; that is, roughly 7 percent of brewers were not-married women.
Norwich
Surveyed in full.
Presentments: Usually householder-focused, but the leet for 1288–89 names both husbands and wives, and the leets for 1290–91, 1292–93, 1295–96, 1299–1300, and 1312–13 list some men, many wives, and some women not identified by marital status. In some of these latter lists (for example, 1290–91), so few men are listed that they might have been bachelors, but in other of these lists (see 1295–96), substantial numbers of men appear, suggesting that some households were represented by husbands and others by wives.
Brewing by not-married women: Not-married women accounted for 16 percent of brewers in 1288–89, 13 percent in 1312–13, and 7 percent in 1390–91.
Beer: Beer was described as “Flemish ale” in 1288–89 but not mentioned subsequently until 1390–91, when it was being sold in Norwich (but not necessarily brewed).
Norfolk Record Office
| Norwich City Records, Press B, Case 5, Shelf b: | |
| Norwich Leets # 1 | no. 1: 1288 |
| Norwich Leets #2 | no. 2: 1288–89 |
| Norwich Leets #3 | no. 3: 1290 |
| Norwich Leets #4 | no. 4: 1290–91 |
| Norwich Leets #5 | no. 5: 1292–93 |
| Norwich Leets #6 | no.6: 1295–96 |
| Norwich Leets #7 | no. 7: 1299–1300 |
| Norwich Leets #8 | no. 8: 1307 |
| Norwich Leets #9 | no. 9: 1312–13 |
| Norwich Leets #10 | no. 10: 1375–76 |
| Norwich Leets # 11 | no. 11: 1390–91 |
Oxford
Presentments: Householder-focused.
Brewing by not-married women: See figure 2.3.
Professionalization: See discussion in chapter 6.
Beer: Not mentioned in courts surveyed.
Oxford University Archives, Bodleian Library
| Oxford Assizes | SEP/4/16 (records of the enforcement of the Assize of Bread and Ale, 1309–51). This material was printed by H. E. Salter on pp. 130–265 of his Mediaeval Archives of the University of Oxford, vol. 2, Oxford Historical Society, 73 (1921). After comparing this transcription with the original, I incorporated into my analyses a few corrections and additions. |
Tamworth
Sampled.
Presentments: Early presentments were householder-focused; later ones were individual-focused. Presentments were made in three-weekly courts until the late fourteenth century, when twice-yearly views began to contain most presentments for infractions of the assize. The frequency of brewing was noted in the earliest presentments. Tamworth fell into two counties (Staffordshire and Warwickshire); in some of the earlier courts, presentments were made from both parts of the town, but later presentments derive from views of frankpledge for only the Staffordshire part.
Brewing by not-married women: Not-married women accounted for roughly one-third of the presentments through the early fifteenth century. Thereafter, their presence cannot be estimated.
Professionalization: Alesellers (first, hucksters who sold many food products and, later, “tranters” who sold ale alone) were active from the late fourteenth century on. Common brewers were mentioned in the late fifteenth century, when the number of brewers presented in each view fell from about 20 to about 8.
Beer: Not mentioned in courts sampled.
General observations: The tasters in Tamworth regulated not only brewers (and alesellers) but also bakers and other victualers such as pastry makers, butchers, and hucksters.
University of Keele Library
| Tamworth, c. 1290 | Tamworth Court Rolls, 1/1–3 (courts, 1289–90) |
| Tamworth, c. 1320 | Tamworth Court Rolls, 2/17–20 (courts, 1319–22) |
| Tamworth, c. 1370 | Tamworth Court Rolls, 3/51–59 (courts, 1370–73) |
| Tamworth, c. 1420 | Tamworth Court Rolls, 6/7–14 (courts, 1419–22) |
| Tamworth, c. 1470 | Tamworth Court Rolls, 8/3–4 (courts, 1470–71) |
| Tamworth, c. 1520 | Tamworth Court Rolls, 10/88 (courts, 1518–22) |
Wallingford
Sampled.
Presentments: Lists of brewers were found in various locations: estreat rolls, burghmotes, and views. The earliest lists were individual-focused, but later presentments were householder-focused. Only scattered presentments were found in extant records for the early fourteenth century.
Brewing by not-married women: Probably 33 percent of brewers in 1228–1229 were not married, and this proportion was roughly maintained through the early fifteenth century. By the early sixteenth century, brewing by not-married women was rare (1 not-married woman noted among 23 brewers).
Beer: Not mentioned in courts sampled.
Berkshire Record Office
| Wallingford, c. 1230 | W/JBe 1 (estreat roll, 1228–29) |
| Wallingford, 1275 | W/JBe 11 (estreat roll, 1276) |
| Wallingford, c. 1300 | W/JBe 13 (estreat roll, c. 1300) |
| Wallingford, c. 1370 | W/JBb 10 (courts, 1367–68) |
| W/JBb 11 (court, 1368) | |
| W/JBb 12 (courts, 1368–69) | |
| W/JBb 13 (courts, 1368–69) | |
| W/JBb 14 (courts, 1369) | |
| W/JBb 15 (courts, 1369–70) | |
| Wallingford, c. 1400 | W/JBb 58 (selected courts, 1401–1402) |
| Wallingford, c. 1460 | W/JBc 1 (court, 1461) |
| Wallingford, c. 1505 | W/JBc 7 (court, 1506) |
| W/JBc 12 (selected court, c. 1507) | |
| Wallingford, c. 1560 | W/JBc 31 (court, 1561) |
York
Few court records survive for late medieval and early modern York, but lists of brewers can be found in two other locations. First, in 1301, when Edward I was using York as an administrative center, brewers and regraters were named in the records of various victualing ordinances and their enforcement. Second, brewers were noted in considerable detail in the Chamberlains’ Accounts of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (since the chamberlains were responsible for accounting for brewers’ fines).
Presentments: Variously focused on husbands or wives.
Brewing by not-married women: In 1304, 11 of 70 brewing households were headed by women (16 percent). In later lists, proportions of not-married women fell but remained steady at about 10 percent. Estimates for these later lists are confounded by the York practice (discussed above) of citing widows as wives, but despite the uncertainties introduced by this practice, it is clear that not-married women continued to brew in York through the sixteenth century. In 1596, when the city licensed 83 brewers, 7 widows and 1 spinster received authorization to follow the trade.42
Beer: The first beerbrewer entered the freedom of York in 1416–17.43
| York, c. 1301 | Data printed in Michael Prestwich, ed., York civic ordinances, 1301, Borthwick Papers, 49 (1976) |
York City Archives
| York, c. 1450 | CC1A: Chamberlains’ Account Book, 1449–54 (selected fines for 1449–50) |
| York, c. 1520 | CC2: Chamberlains’ Account Book, 1520–25 |
| York, c. 1560 | CC5: Chamberlains’ Account Book, 1559–85 (selected fines for 1559–66) |
| York, c. 1595 | CC8: Chamberlains’ Account Book, 1594–97 |
| CC9: Chamberlains’ Account Book, 1597–99 |