Interesting article on the Reinheitsgebot

Books? Who reads books anymore?

(JK -- I'm a bookaholic)

 

I have found some help for all in this discussion, or at least a fun game to play - Bullshit Bingo!

 

Bogeyman bingo.

 

My understanding of the general chronology is that the landesverodnung of 1516, which included the reinheitsgebot, was introduced under the rule of Duke Wilhelm IV (1493-1550). During his reign, possibly in the year 1548 (I've also seen the year 1520 mentioned), he gave the Degenberger family the privilege to brew weissbier made from wheat in the realm owned by this family. Wilhelm's son, Albrecht V (1528-1579), during his reign issued a decree against brewing with wheat in 1567, calling it a waste of wheat and an unnecessary drink which didn't nourish or slaked one's thirst.

Albrecht's son, Wilhelm V (1548-1626), was the one who oversaw the construction of a royal brewery in 1589 (Hofbräuhaus). He was replaced on the throne by his son, Maximilian I (1573-1651) in 1597, who was in power when the last male heir of the Degenberger family died out in the year 1602, which meant that the privilege to brew wheat beer was transferred over to the Duke himself. The Duke in turn oversaw the construction of several weissbier breweries, among which was the weisses hofbräuhaus in Munich (where the brewer of the Degenberger family came to work).

 

How do you suppose he kept a straight face when decreeing that?

 

This is good info. Thanks for posting.

It is, I believe, important to always keep in mind that the RHG was part of a larger Landesverordnung, that included information about taxes on goods sold as well as punishments for breaking certain guidelines regarding the use of raw materials (like wheat). I don't think it's fair, however, to conclude that the RHG is actually just a bread protection (or a royal revenue protection) law. Rather it is part of an overarching set of regulations on the price, tax, and protection of foodstuffs -- and beer is, to this day in Germany, considered by most (esp. Bavarians) to be food.

Second, it looks from the timeline like the specific decree against brewing with wheat came considerably later -- in 1567. I don't have access to the weather records, but maybe @drtth can look up to see if conditions during that time were also such that there were shortages. From the looks of things on the surface, it appears many amateur historians may have conflated this decree with the earlier RHG.

Third, the link provided by @NierBier includes some great examples and clarifications about the previous "purity laws" here: http://www.private-brauereien.de/de/reinheitsgebot/vorlaeufer-des-reinheitsgebotes/index.php. Interesting there is the discussion about how beer was more pure than water, and thus people drinking beer were less likely to contract illnesses. However, many brewers were adding things to their beers to cover up off flavors: herbs, thorn apples (datura), banewort, roots, and even soot. These things were making people sick, too, so apparently the authorities got involved -- with the RHG. The link does say that initially the authorities were more concerned about people (and the authorities themselves) getting ripped off by these brewers, and later became more concerned about the ingredients.

Finally, this section of the link (http://www.private-brauereien.de/de/reinheitsgebot/was-ist-das-reinheitsgebot-von-1516/index.php) makes some interesting points as well. Apparently the term Gerste in the original was later changed to Gerstenmalz and then Malz. As noted earlier, the Bamberg RHG used the term Malz, as did the Weimar RHG from 1348, the Weissensee "Statuta thaberna" from 1434, and the Herzogtum Bayern-Landshut Biersatzordung from 1493. This seems to complicate the picture about wheat's role in all of this....

 

Excellent additional information that should be useful in helping to unravel this puzzle. Thanks for adding to the picture!

 

All good information, but we do have to be careful of a wording issue here. In the original 1516 formulation quoted above the only things allowed in brewing include Barley but not wheat. Based on the new information it appears that first mention of wheat being expressly forbidden occurs much later. But some would argue that that is a difference which is purely semantic and/or legalistic. If one is only allowed to use barley that is effectively forbidding the use of anything else not being mentioned as being allowed. So what we may be looking at in the later decree is a modification of existing law to more expressly and clearly articulate or list things that are not allowed as a control measure or legal clarification for those who say, "Yes, you told me I was only allowed to do X, but you didn't tell me I couldn't do Y." (Which is the type of issue that often comes before the US Surpreme court in our system of government but which would have handled by a single central authority in that era.)

The climactic conditions referred to early in 1515 (i.e., massive flooding and associated destruction in Germany, which would have included crop damages since farmers are notorious for using bottom land where they are able because of its higher fertility) are in the table I linked to the other night and I'll take a look again at that later on today to see what can be learned there. However, the relative dates for allowing state a approved monopoly on brewing with wheat do indeed suggest that if Duchy greed entered the equation it did so somewhat later that the 1516 decree and might well not have been a central concern in 1516.

It is interesting to learn that the 1516 formulation is part of a more general pattern of growing concern for insuring the non-use of harmful agricultural products in the food chain as I've not seen before a lot of documentation to suggest that was in any way widespread (i.e., more that a particular city) during this period of history. Which raises the quite interesting side question (not to be pursued here and now) of whether that general trend may have contributed to the strength and stability of Bavaria during the impending 30 years war, even though they probably would not have known in 1515-16 that such a war was on the horizon. But that is another question for another time. Our fundamental concern here is what was the intent of the 1516 ruling.

 

Glad you brought this up, as it leads (I believe) to one of the more curious points from the link @NierBier posted: namely where it is stated:

In den vergangenen fünf Jahrhunderten wurde dieser Text mehrfach verändert. Aus Gerste (dazu würde man auch heute „Rohfrucht“ sagen) wurde Gerstenmalz, später Malz. Die Beschränkung auf Gerste wurde zugunsten weiterer Getreidesorten aufgegeben.

The interesting part is where the author implies that the term Gerste (which I and others have been interpreting to mean specifically barley) may have had a broader definition: ("today we would refer to it as Rohfrucht"). To quote Prof. Narziss's book Bierbrauerei Band 2: Die Technologie der Wuerzezubereitung: "Als Rohfrucht koennen alle Staerkereichen Materialien in Frage kommen [...] ungemaelzte Gersten und Weizen, Roggen, Triticale, Reis, Mais, kleinkoernige Hirsen (Sorghum)" [translation: "Rohfrucht can comprise any starch-rich raw material [...] such as barley and wheat, rye, rice, corn, or sorghum."]

I wonder if this may have been one reason some (many?) of these materials continued to be used until they were expressly forbidden?

 

He didn't have to since everyone was on his knees with his head down when he said it

 

Correction of spelling/typing.

"climatic conditions referred to early in 1515" should have been "climatic conditions referred to earlier..." The climate tables are dealing with large scale events on an annualized basis and do not indicate season or account for microclimate varitations where, for example, a wind storm could level and destroy fields in one small area while leaving nearby areas untouched.

 

Never seen that interpretation either. There's so much divergent and, honestly, strange information out there about the RHG I don't know what to believe and what not to believe.

 

Re Weather and other major events in Central Europe during the Renaissance

Here's link to a very interesting table which does talk about massive flooding in Central Europe in 1515 and also provides a timeline for some other major events throughout the world during that era.

http://www.phenomena.org.uk/page29/page33/page33.html

Not very fine grained with regard to local conditions post 1515 but an interesting read independent of the primary focus of this thread.

 

I would be surprised to find any evidence that Gerste ever meant other grains as well as barley. The reason the law talks of Gerste rather than Malz or Gerstenmalz is that malting was considered an integral part of the beer-making process. Even today the apprenticeship youngsters in Germany sign up for is not "brewer"; it’s "brewer and maltster".

 

And rye didn’t need to be forbidden because until very recently everyone agreed that it was complete crap for brewing and much better left for making bread or schnapps. I haven’t seen a single positive reference to rye in 18th and 19th century sources. They all say things like "beer made from rye is greenish and makes you constipated."

 

But both earlier (in Bamberg) and later (in the revised RHG they changed from Gerste to Gerstenmalz to Malz.

 

“And rye didn’t need to be forbidden because until very recently everyone agreed that it was complete crap…”

What is the explanation for “until very recently”? Is contemporary rye malt superior to the rye malt of the 18th and 19th Centuries?

Cheers!

 

LOL! Never heard that before -- funny how different tales develop.