Title: measures-msg
Subject: Medieval measurements, units.
Author: Edited by Mark S. Harris
Last saved by: Mark S. Harris
Keywords: medieval, measurement, unit, measure, translation, convert

measures-msg – 2/3/08

Period measures and cautions for recipes.

NOTE: See also the files: commerce-msg, p-menus-msg, beverages-msg, measures-art, Sandglass-art, clocks-msg, calendars-msg, coins-msg.

KEYWORDS: measures measurements conversions units

************************************************************************
NOTICE -

This file is a collection of various messages having a common theme that I  have collected from my reading of the various computer networks. Some messages date back to 1989, some may be as recent as yesterday.

This file is part of a collection of files called Stefan's Florilegium. These files are available on the Internet at: http://www.florilegium.org

I  have done  a limited amount  of  editing. Messages having to do  with separate topics  were sometimes split into different files and sometimes extraneous information was removed. For instance, the  message IDs  were removed to save space and remove clutter.

The comments made in these messages are not necessarily my viewpoints. I make  no claims  as  to the accuracy  of  the information  given  by the individual authors.

Please  respect the time  and  efforts of  those who have written  these messages. The  copyright status  of these messages  is  unclear  at this time. If  information  is  published  from  these  messages, please give credit to the originator(s).

Thank you,
    Mark S. Harris                  AKA:  THLord Stefan li Rous
                                          Stefan at florilegium.org
************************************************************************

From: perkins at msupa.pa.msu.EDU ("corpusculorum velocium perexiguorum
Date: 1 Oct 91 15:46:39 GMT

Jeremy de Merstone greets the Rialto and comments (at length--sorry) on
Duke Sir Cariadoc's interpretation of the Hippocras recipe from Le Menagier
de Paris (as found in the 1928 translation of the 1830s collation):

> To make powdered hippocras, take a quarter of very fine cinnamon
> selected by tasting it, and half a quarter of fine flour of cinnamon,
> an ounce of selected string ginger, fine and white, and an ounce of
> grain of Paradise, a sixth of nutmegs and galingale together, and
> bray them all together.  And when you would make your hippocras, take
> a good half ounce of this powder and two quarters of sugar and mix
> them with a quart of wine, by Paris measure.  And note that the
> powder and the sugar mixed together is the Duke's powder.
>
> (this is the end of the period recipe; the rest is how we do it)
>
> 4 oz stick cinnamon     1 oz of ginger
> 2 oz powdered cinnamon  1 oz of grains of paradise
> RA sixthS (probably of a poundQ2 2/3 ounces) of nutmegs and galingale
> together
>
> Grind them all together. To make hippocras add 1/2 ounce of the
> powder and 1/2 lb (1 cup) of sugar to a quart of boiling wine. Strain
> through a sleeve of Hippocrates (a tube of cloth, closed at one end).
> We generally use somewhat less of both sugar and powder than the
> recipe calls for.

This last remark started me wondering what the units of measure in use in
Paris in 1393 were -- so I looked them up:

The standard "pound" in use in that time and place for food items was the
"livre poids de marc" or "livre de Paris" established by King John II (the
Good) in the 1350s (replacing for all but a few commodities the old "livre"
analogous to [but not quite equal in size to] the Troy pound used in
England).  The "livre de Paris" continued in use for quite some time (up to
the Revolution, and metricization), virtually unchanged, so we know it to
be equal to 0.489506 kg (1.0792 US pounds) (at least to the precision of
the available weighing devices).  It was divided into 16 "onces", so the
recipe is fine in that respect (this is not just a trivial matter -- the
pre-1350 "livre" was divided into 12 "onces", not 16, and even in 1393,
there were special "livres" used for certain goods (e.g., wool) which were
divided into 15 "onces").

The standard "quarte" used in Paris for wine held 1.863 liters (1.969 US
liquid quarts).  The "quartes" used for other commodities varied widely,
and were usually much much larger, analogous to the British "quarter"
rather than to the "quart".  The "by Paris measure" part is also rather
important, in that there was not a lot of uniformity in measurements from
place to place -- the fact that the Goodman follows the recipe His Grace
has quoted with a variant of it, mentioning "quarts of xxx" (where xxx was
a list of other regions) is evidence that this lack of regularity could
even affect ordinary household matters.  The "Paris" standards were
considered as a sort of French national standard, but it was not required
that people elsewhere use them -- just that any measure claimed to be "of
Paris" had to conform to the standard.

The fact that His Grace finds that using "somewhat less of both sugar and
powder than the recipe calls for" gives more satisfactory results is
probably confirmation that modern tastes are *not* too different from the
Goodman's, whose "pound" is only 8% larger than ours, but whose "quart" was
97% larger.  To reach the same sugar+powder concentration the Goodman found
most palatable, we should put only 55% of the expected quantity of our
measured-out-with-modern-equipment sugar+powder mixture into our
measured-out-with-modern-equipment wine (or else use measuring implements
calibrated to 1393 Parisian weights and measures standards -- I probably
should NOT assume that His Grace DOESN'T do this, but based on his
"generally use somewhat less" remark, I think it safe to so assume, I hope,
fingers crossed).

Reference:
_French_Weights_and_Measures_Before_the_Revolution_:_A_Dictionary_of_
Provincial_and_Local_Units_, Ronald Edward Zupko, Indiana Univ. Press,
Bloomington & London, 1978 (LC Classification QC89.F8 Z86, Dewey Decimal
389.10944,  LC Cat Card # 78-3249,  ISBN 0-253-32480-7)

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jeremy de Merstone       George J Perkins    perkins at msupa.pa.msu.edu
 North Woods, MidRealm    East Lansing, MI    perkins at msupa (Bitnet)
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: cav at bnr.ca (Rick Cavasin)
Subject: Re: How sweet were medieval wines?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 93 18:09:30 GMT

In article <20pv22$qp at agate.berkeley.edu>, dgreen at athena (David Greenebaum) writes:
|> Greetings from Bjalfi!
|> 
|> In sweetened- and mulled-wine recipes, I seem to recall a posting a long
|> time back, I think it was from Duke Cariadoc? showing research which
|> indicated that the term "quart" actually signified a larger measure
|> than the modern U.S. quart.  Thus, making a recipe using modern quarts
|> of liquid in place of the medieval/renaissance quarts would yield a
|> stronger/sweeter recipe than the one actually enjoyed by the creators
|> of the recipe.  (Though I don't think this ccan explain away ALL the
|> difference...)  Milord Cariadoc, if it was indeed you who posted this
|> information, is this accurate?
|> 
|> ---------------------  Bjalfi Thordharson/College of St. Katherine/Province of
|>  |\  | |\  |\  |// |       the Mists/Principality of the Mists/West Kingdom
|>  | > | |\\ | \ |/  |   David Greenebaum/University of California/Berkeley, CA
|>  |<  | | \ |   |   |   dgreen at athena.berkeley.edu, dgreen at garnet.berkeley.edu
|>  | > | |   |   |   |
|>  |/  | |   |   |   |   "I make mistakes, but I am on the side of good -- by
|> ---------------------  accident and happenchance." -- the Golux

Depends on the recipe.  If it specifies 'X quarts honey to Y quarts
water', then it hardly matters whether quarts are thimbles or barrels
(as far as strength/sweetness is concerned).  Some of Digby's recipes
go no further than parts honey vs parts water (yes I know it's OOP).  
Where it *does* make
a difference is in cases where the measures are different (ie. X quarts
honey to Y barrels water) or where other ingredients (eg.spices) are
included.
Of course, I don't know much about medieval recipes.  My favourite example
of obscure units in a medieval recipe comes up in a recipe for cheverel
(a type of oil tanned leather) wherein you find the phrase:
'Take as much oil as you would use to warm a bowl of soup'
Cheers, Balderik

From: perkins at MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: How sweet were medieval wines?
Date: 30 Jun 1993 00:02:08 GMT
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

Angharad [jtn at nutter.cs.vt.edu (Terry Nutter)] writes in response to Bjalfi:

>>In sweetened- and mulled-wine recipes, I seem to recall a posting a long
>>time back, I think it was from Duke Cariadoc? showing research which
>>indicated that the term "quart" actually signified a larger measure
>>than the modern U.S. quart.  Thus, making a recipe using modern quarts
>>of liquid in place of the medieval/renaissance quarts would yield a
>>stronger/sweeter recipe than the one actually enjoyed by the creators
>>of the recipe.  
>
>I'm confused.  If all the ingredients are specified in quarts, surely
>the diffence in the size of the quart will not affect the ratio of
>water to sweet ingredients, and so will not change anything but absolute
>amounts.  If some of the ingredients are specified, say, in pints, and
>others in quarts, then again, surely the important issue is the number
>of quarts to pints in each system (are their pints _also_ commensurately
>larger), etc.  With honey, the amounts are frequently specified in pounds
>-- and I've found that different varieties of honey measure out to different
>volumes to the pound anyhow, almost surely within the level of variation
>suggested here for the volume measures themselves.

The particular circumstance which Bjalfi recalls was a posting back in
September or October of 1991 by Duke Cariadoc of a translation/interpretation
of the Hippocras recipe in _Le_Menagier_de_Paris_.  It had some measurements
expressed in terms of volume (mainly the liquids) and some in terms of weight
(mainly the solids, such as the added sugar and spices).

He mentioned that he himself generally made the recipe with less sugar and
spicing than it appeared was called for, as the result tasted better.

I was curious about this comment, as well as by the phrasing of one of the
measurements ("by Paris measure", I believe), so I checked a reference on
the details of the measurement system in use in the Paris of the late 14th
Century.  It turned out that the "pound" ("livre de Paris") used for the
dry measures in the recipe was only a little heavier than our modern
American pound, while the "quarte" used in the recipe's liquid measure was
almost twice as large as the modern American quart.  Hence, a blind
translation would yield a result more than 80% higher in sugar and spice
concentration than the original recipe writer intended.  I posted this
information and pointed out that His Grace's reduction of the "blind
translation" amounts for taste's sake was supporting evidence that medieval
taste was not terribly out of line for our own (or, to be more accurate,
for the experienced-in-medieval-cookery palate, such as His Grace's), as it
went in the direction of restoring the true original recipe.

Obviously, had there not been the nearly-factor-of-two difference in the
solid/liquid measuring system ratio, it would have been harder to
distinguish the "blind" translation from the original. Or, if Le Menagier
had stuck to weights only or volumes only in the recipe, there would have
been no problem to begin with.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jeremy de Merstone       George J Perkins    perkins at msupa.pa.msu.edu
 North Woods, MidRealm    East Lansing, MI    perkins at msupa (Bitnet)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: ddfr at quads.uchicago.edu (david director friedman)
Subject: Re: How sweet were medieval wines?
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1993 06:27:10 GMT

Bjalfi asks about medieval quarts. What he is remembering is probably
not a posting by me but a posting politely pointing out an error I
had made; I have forgotten who posted it.

My error involved the ratio of spices and sugar to wine in Le
Menagier's Hippocras recipe. Spices and sugar are given by weight,
wine by quarts of Paris measure. The poster, whose name I have
forgotten, pointed out that the quart of Paris measure c. 1392 was
almost twice the modern quart, whereas the units of weight used were
close to the modern unit, making the ratio of spice and sugar to wine
about half what my careless reading of the recipe (taking quarts as
modern quarts) implied. This was particularly interesting because it
meant that in modifying the recipe to my own taste (cutting the spice
and sugar in half) I had inadvertently corrected my error--thus
providing evidence, through a blind experiment, that medieval tastes
in spicing were similar to modern tastes (or at least my taste). 

Note that units of volume varied from time to time and place to
place, so you should not conclude from this that all medieval quarts
were bigger than modern quarts. 

David/Cariadoc

From: djheydt at uclink.berkeley.edu (Dorothy J Heydt)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Rosary/Paternoster
Date: 11 Jul 1994 03:34:22 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <9406097738.AA773807543 at inet.sagepub.com>,
CATHERINE_CHILTON <CATHERINE_CHILTON at sagepub.COM> wrote:

>          Incidentally -- has anyone ever actually timed a Latin Ave
>          or Pater to see how long it takes to say them? I'd know a
>          lot better how long to stir things in medieval recipes.

A Pater Noster is 20 seconds.  I say three when blanching
almonds, to know when to take 'em out of the boiling water.  An
Ave is about 13 seconds.  This is recited at a good speed, but
not dropping any syllables for Titivillus to pick up.

Dorothea of Caer-Myrddin		Dorothy J. Heydt
Mists/Mists/West				UC Berkeley
Argent, a cross forme'e sable		djheydt at uclink.berkeley.edu
PRO DEO ET REGE

From: IMC at vax2.utulsa.edu (I. Marc Carlson)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: PEDANTRY: Measurement (Was: Army Times)
Date: 13 Oct 1994 14:13:29 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway

U.J|rgen \hman (bubba at adolf.ludd.luth.se) wrote:
: Could someone by the way tell me where the yard, mile, pound and gallon comes
: from and how/if they are related to each other.

Inch English.  From the Latin "Uncia" (or a twelfth part), an
     inch is 1/12 Foot. A measure of length.
     In French, the unit of 1/12 a "foot" is the Pounce.  In
     Spanish, Pulgadas.  nb. A 12th of a Pounce is a Ligne, and a
     12th of a Pulgadas is a Lignas.  English inches are
     traditionally divided into eighths.

Foot The length of a Man's Foot. A measure of length.  From town
     to town, country to Country, this measurement could differ,
     but as a rule a French Pied was equal to 12.8 English
     inches, while a Spanish Pie was 10.96 English inches

Yard A unit of linear measure equal to equal to 3 feet or 36
     inches.  Also the corresponding measure of area (square yard
     = 9 square feet) or of solidity (cubic yard = 27 cubic
     feet).  Aka Verge.  NOT to be confused with:

Yard A unit of linear measure equal to 16 1/2 feet or 5 1/2 yards
     (but varying locally); AKA rod, pole, or perch. Sometimes
     distinguished as land-yard.

Ell  English. From the Latin "Ulna". A unit of linear measure
     equal to 45 inches.  The word ell seems to have been
     variously taken to represent the distance from the elbow or
     from the shoulder to the wrist or to the finger-tips, while
     in some cases a "double ell" has superseded the original
     measure, and has taken its name.
          English ell = 45 in.
          Scots       = 37.2 in.
          Flemish     = 27 in.

Nail A measure of weight for wool, beef, etc., usually equal to
     eight pounds = clove
     A measure of land.
     A measure of length for cloth; 2.14 inches, or the 1/16th
     part of a yard.
     "The precise origin of this sense is not clear. The use of
     the nail in early examples suggests that one sixteenth from
     the end of the yard-stick may have been marked by a nail."
     (OED)

Ounce
     English.  From the Latin "Uncia" (or a twelfth part), an
     ounce is 1/12 Pound (or was originally, and is still in
     "troy" weight).  A measurement of weight.

Pound
     A measure of weight and mass derived from the ancient Roman
     libra (which is equal to 327.25 grams), but this ancient
     standard has been modified variously over the course of
     time, and in different countries.
     The pound consisted originally of 12 ounces, corresponding
     more or less to that of troy weight. This is still used by
     goldsmiths and jewellers in stating the weight of gold,
     silver, and precious stones; but as early as the thirteenth
     or fourteenth century a pound of sixteen ounces was used for
     more bulky commodities. This was made a standard for general
     purposes of trade by Edward III, and known as the pound
     aveir de peis, i.e. of merchandise of weight, now called
     avoirdupois, q.v.
     At other times the pound has varied locally from 12 to 27
     ounces, according to the commodity, pounds of different
     weight being often used in the same place for different
     articles, as bread, butter, cheese, meat, malt, hay, wool,
     etc.
          Scotch pound of 16 ounces of Troy or Dutch Weight
          consisted of 7608.9496 grains
          the Tron pound kept at Edinburgh = 9622.67 grains.
          Italy between 300 and 350 grams
          Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, and some German
          states between 459 and 469 grams (Ie., those lands
          ruled by Charles V?)
          In other German states, Denmark, etc. between 477 and
          510.22 grams. But the standard German pfund is now 500
          grams.

Mark A denomination of weight formerly employed (chiefly for gold
     and silver) throughout western Europe; its actual weight
     varied considerably, but it was usually regarded as
     equivalent to 8 ounces (= either 23 or 12 of a pound,
     according to the meaning given to the latter term).

Mile Originally, the Roman lineal measure of 1,000 paces (mille
     passus or passuum), computed to have been about 1,618 yards.
     Hence, the unit of measure derived from this, used in the
     British Isles and in other English-speaking countries. Its
     length has varied considerably at different periods and in
     different localities, chiefly owing to the influence of the
     agricultural system of measures with which the mile has been
     brought into relation (see furlong). The legal mile in
     Britain and the U.S. is now 1,760 yards (5280 feet). The
     Irish mile of 2,240 yards is still in rustic use. The
     obsolete Scottish mile was longer than the English, and
     probably varied according to time and place; one of the
     values given for it is 1,976 yards.

Furlong
     Originally the distance an Ox could pull a plow before
     needing to rest, ie., "a furrow long".  As early as the 9th
     c. it was regarded as the equivalent of the Roman stadium,
     which was 18 of a Roman mile; and hence furlong has always
     been used as a name for the eighth part of an English mile,
     whether this coincided with the agricultural measure so
     called or not. The present statute furlong is 220 yards, and
     is equal both to the eighth part of a statute mile, and to
     the side of a square of 10 statute acres.

League
     An itinerary measure of distance, varying in different
     countries, but usually estimated roughly at about 3 miles;
     app. never in regular use in England, but often occurring in
     poetical or rhetorical statements of distance.
     Although the league appears never to have been an English
     measure, leuca occurs somewhat frequently in Anglo-Latin
     law-books (Bracton, Fleta, etc.); it is disputed whether in
     these works it means one mile or two.

Gallon
     An English measure of capacity. The imperial gallon contains
     27714 cubic inches: the winegallon of 231 cubic inches is
     the standard in the United States.
Quart
     An English measure of capacity, one-fourth of a gallon, or
     two pints.

Pint A measure of capacity for liquids (also for corn and other
     dry substances of powdery or granular nature), equal to 1/2
     a quart or 1/8 of a gallon; of varying content at different
     times and places.

Ton  Tun. A unit used in measuring the carrying capacity or
     burden of a ship, the amount of cargo, freight, etc.
     Originally, the space occupied by a tun cask of wine. Now,
     for the purposes of registered tonnage, the space of 100
     cubic feet. For purposes of freight, usually the space of 40
     cubic feet, unless that bulk would weigh more than 20 cwt.,
     in which case freight is charged by weight. But the
     expression "ton of cargo" is also used with regard to
     special packages which are conventionally assumed as going
     so many packages to the ton.

A simple scholar,

	Diarmuit Ui Dhuinn
	Shire of Northkeep, Kingdom of Ansteorra
	(I. Marc Carlson/IMC at vax2.utulsa.edu)

From: asewpo1 at peabody.sct.ucarb.COM (Steve Weaver)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Furlongs
Date: 14 Oct 1994 12:12:23 -0400
Organization: the internet

According to my inforation:
1 furlong = 660 feet
          = 0.125 miles
          = 40 rods/poles
          = 440 cubits

(Now re-entering lurking mode)  ;-)

From: jeffs at math.bu.EDU (Jeff Suzuki)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: pound of gold, pound of feathers
Date: 17 Oct 1994 14:10:00 -0400
Organization: the internet

>Worth remembering next time someone asks which weighs more -- a pound
>of gold or a pound of feathers...

Actually, a pound is a pound is a pound.

However...one pound of non-precious metal goods is 16 avoirdupois
ounces (French for "goods of weight").  One pound of gold is divided
into 12 troy (from Troyes) ounces, so the individual ounces weigh
more.  Thus, 1 ounce of gold is heavier than 1 ounce of feathers.
Each ounce was subdivided into 20 smaller weights, whose names I will
withhold pending a surprise.

Notice the ratio: 1:12:20.  The pre-decimal British currency was so
divided: 1 pound = 12 shillings, and 1 shilling = 20 pence.  Thus it
should be no surprise that the smallest weight is a "pennyweight".
Originally a pound of _silver_ (equal in value to an ounce of gold)
was divided into 12 ounces (from the Latin _uncia_), and each ounce
could be minted into 20 silver pennies.  Depending on the time in
England, pay on the order of shillings per year put you in the middle
class.

(An ounce of silver has a volume of about 2.5 cubic centimeters, or
a coin about the size and thickness of a quarter, if you're wondering
how big the coins were)

William the Alchymist

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 15:24:11 EDT
From: Chris West <CKW101 at psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: pound of gold, pound of feathers

In article <199410171806.OAA06196 at math.bu.edu>, jeffs at math.bu.EDU (Jeff Suzuki)
says:

>Actually, a pound is a pound is a pound.
>
>However...one pound of non-precious metal goods is 16 avoirdupois
>ounces (French for "goods of weight").  One pound of gold is divided
>into 12 troy (from Troyes) ounces, so the individual ounces weigh
>more.  Thus, 1 ounce of gold is heavier than 1 ounce of feathers.
>Each ounce was subdivided into 20 smaller weights, whose names I will
>withhold pending a surprise.

...snip

>William the Alchymist

A pound is not a pound. It is true that a pound avoirdupois is 16 ounces
avoirdupois. It is also true that a pound troy is 12 ounces troy. It is
NOT TRUE that a pound avoirdupois is a pound troy. Why? an ounce troy is
about 32 grams, an ounce av. is about 29 grams. Thus, a #av is about 465
grams, and a #t is more like 390 g. (probably these numbers are not exact,
if so, flame me and I'll post truth when I can look it up).

Therefore a pound of feathers is significantly heavier than a pound of gold.
On the other hand, a pound of lead is _exactly the same_ as a pound of
feathers.

--Raul de Paz

From: WJMICHALSKI <wjmichalski at delphi.com>
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: pound of gold, pound of feathers
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 94 19:37:50 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info at delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Jeff Suzuki <jeffs at math.bu.EDU> writes:
 
>Actually, a pound is a pound is a pound.
 
Not quite.  See below.
 
>However...one pound of non-precious metal goods is 16 avoirdupois
>ounces (French for "goods of weight").  One pound of gold is divided
>into 12 troy (from Troyes) ounces, so the individual ounces weigh
>more.  Thus, 1 ounce of gold is heavier than 1 ounce of feathers.
>Each ounce was subdivided into 20 smaller weights, whose names I will
>withhold pending a surprise.
 
The actual smallest measurement is the grain, of which 24 grains = one
pennyweight (dwt) of gold.  20 dwt do indeed make one ounce troy, which is
480 grains.
 
With avoirdupois weight, 27,343 grains one dram, and 16 drams make one
ounce av.  Total being 417 grains per ounce.  So yes, an ounce of gold is
heavier than an ounce of feathers.
 
However...
 
One pound troy = 12 oz. = 5760 grains.
One pound av. = 16 oz. = 6679 grains.
 
A pound of feathers is heavier than a pound of gold.
 
Mikhail

From: Erika.Sarah at launchpad.unc.edu (Erika Sarah)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: English measurements
Date: 26 Oct 1994 07:54:24 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service

*This story is slightly off topic, and not really period, but it's really
funny and pretty short, so I'm going to post it anyway*

An American laboratory sent some data to an English lab using the
Metric notation grams per cubic centimeter.  The English lab sent back the
data with the comment "This is an English laboratory. WE do not use the
METRIC system.  Please send the data back to us in English measurements."

The American laboratory sent back the data in stones per royal firkin.
-- 
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
Launchpad is an experimental internet BBS. The views of its users do not 
necessarily represent those of UNC-Chapel Hill, OIT, or the SysOps.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

From: djheydt at uclink.berkeley.edu (Dorothy J Heydt)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: mile yard etc.
Date: 22 Oct 1994 01:37:27 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

[Hal posting from Dorothy's account...]
In article <199410191612.MAA24581 at math.bu.edu>,
Jeff Suzuki <jeffs at math.bu.EDU> wrote:
>1 knot = 1 nautical
>mile/hour = .01 degrees/hour.  

The "1 naut. mile per hour" is correct, but the nautical mile was
originally 1 minute of longitude at 45 degrees North latitude.
It's now defined in metric units and varies by country.

>Mark twain is two fathoms....

Yes, but...  The reference is to both the depth (two fathoms) *and*
that that particular depth is has a visual and tactile indicator
on the lead line.  All depths with such attachments are "marks".
All others are "deeps."  A leadsman measuring 12 feet of water
calls "by the mark two (or twain)."  If the depth on the lead is
36 feet (6 fathoms) he would call "by the deep six!"  Per
Bowditch _The American Practical Navigator_ (1931 edition, but
this stuff doesn't change very fast), the marks are: 2, 3, 5, 7,
10, 13, 15, 17, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, etc. fathoms.  Note the
concentration with depths of use and interest to sailing and
other early ships.  

Samuel Clemens chose that particular _nom de plume_ because, as a
riverboat skipper on the Mississippi, when the water was 12 feet
deep, it was safe sailing for those boats.

	--Hal Ravn
	 (Hal Heydt)

From: phefner at aol.com (PHefner)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: How much is an ell? (Was: Baggy pants)
Date: 23 Dec 1994 00:15:45 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In Paris, in 1400, an ell was the length equal to the distance between the
extended middle finger and the elbow. Christine de Pisan refers to a gown
made for a lady by a contemporary Parisian dressmaker thus: "...which
required five ells of wide Brussels material trailing three-quarters on
the ground, replete with bombard sleeves hanging to the feet". Gosh, could
five ells have been adequate for such a huge houppelande? ---Isabelle de
Foix

From: jeffs at math.bu.EDU (Jeff Suzuki)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: ell
Date: 29 Dec 1994 10:57:10 -0500
Organization: The Internet

>PMJI: How much is an ell?
>
>Rosalyn MacGregor of Glen Orchy

I don't know what PMJI stands for, but there are several answers to
the question.  The right answer is, "It depends".  (Oddly enough, this
question just came up a few days ago, when my lady needed to know the
answer for a sewing project, whose lengths were measured in ells)

The three ells we could find were: Flemish (27 inches), French (45
inches), and English (54 inches).  

William the Alchymist

From: s.krossa at aberdeen.ac.uk (Sharon Krossa)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Length of a Scottish 'ell' (was: Great Kilt)
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 02:42:43 +0000
Organization: Phuture PhuDs

In article <3259CC85.5674 at dimensional.com>,
Archer <archer at dimensional.com> wrote on 8 Oct 1996:

>Matthew Pius wrote:
>> 
>> Archer <archer at dimensional.com> writes:
>> >My understanding of an ell is that it is a measurement from the tip of
>> >your elbow to the tip of your middle finger, which on myself is about
>> >30" or so...
>> >this being the case, 16 ells of cloth would be a little over 13
>> >yards...egads, that's a lotta cloth...:)
>> 
>>         Well, I'm certainly not going to comment on the length of
>> Archer's arms, but I WOULD be somewhat surprised if they measured 30
>> inches from the elbow to fingertip (unless you mean the elbow of one arm
>> to the tip of middle finger on the opposite hand :) )  I don't have a
>> ruler with me at the moment, but as a guess, I'd say that the described
>> measurement on me (tip of elbow to tip of middle finger) is round about
>> 18 inches, which makes 16 ells VERY roughly equivalent to 8 yards.  This,
>> of course assumes that an ell is the measurement from tip of elbow to tip
>> of middle finger, something for which I can not vouch one way or the other.
>
>As I said in another post, 30" was a typo.  The actual measurment is
>20", which would make 16 ells just short of 9 yards.  I got the
>description of ell out of my trusty, rusty Bookshelf '96 CD, so I don't
>know how accurate it is, but it's the only dictionary I've got.  BTW,
>the elbow to fingertip measure was listed as the "ancient" usage, with
>the modern being a set 45".  Don't know why 45" would be a good
>standardization, but hey, it's not my word...

The answer is, Bookshelf is not very accurate. Have fun someday, and
compare the encyclopedia entries in Bookshelf to those in Encarta for the
same subjects... and then check out some proper books and discover that
often neither answer is right ;-)

As regarding the Scottish ell, it was defined by Act of Parliament in the
reign of David I as being 37 inches, where an inch was defined based on a
medium-sized man's thumb. James I re-stated this definition in 1426. Notice
that this definition had nothing to do with elbows, arms, etc, but with
thumbs (37 of them). In _Changing Values in Medieval Scotland_, Gemmill &
Mayhew say "There does not seem to have been any particular change in the
[Scottish] ell over time, but there is explicit reference in the records to
the ell of Scottish measure. TA II.234 (treasurer, purchase in Flanders,
1504): 24 Flemish ells of grey damask ('gray dames') equivalent to 18 Scots
ells, so the Flemish ell was only three-quarters of the size of the Scots
ell in this instance."

Assuming a medieval Scottish inch is the same as a modern inch would be a
very rash thing to do, so I will refrain from calculating the length of 16
ells in modern units.

Effrick neyn kenyeoch vik harrald
mka Sharon Krossa, finding Mayhew & Gemmill useful once again
skrossa at svpal.org (permanent) -or- s.krossa at abdn.ac.uk (until Nov 1996)
Medieval Scotland Web Page (including information on names & clothing):
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~his016/medieval_scotland.html

From: david_key at vnet.ibm.com (Dave Key)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Length of an ell, was Re: Length of a Scottish 'ell'
Date: 18 Oct 1996 08:15:12 GMT
Organization: IBM UK Laboratories Ltd.

In <AE8C9F2396681138E at annex-p7.abdn.ac.uk>, s.krossa at aberdeen.ac.uk (Sharon Krossa) writes:
>As regarding the Scottish ell, it was defined by Act of Parliament in the
>reign of David I as being 37 inches, where an inch was defined based on a
>medium-sized man's thumb. James I re-stated this definition in 1426. Notice
>that this definition had nothing to do with elbows, arms, etc, but with
>thumbs (37 of them). In _Changing Values in Medieval Scotland_, Gemmill &
>Mayhew say "There does not seem to have been any particular change in the
>[Scottish] ell over time, but there is explicit reference in the records to
>the ell of Scottish measure. TA II.234 (treasurer, purchase in Flanders,
>1504): 24 Flemish ells of grey damask ('gray dames') equivalent to 18 Scots
>ells, so the Flemish ell was only three-quarters of the size of the Scots
>ell in this instance."

Very interesting post ... I'm still waiting for the library to deliver a copy of the Acts of Parliament for Scotland ... however to add a bit extra ...
In C15th England the Ell was defined as 45" (5/4 of a yard ... which was 36"
unless you were measuring cloth in which case it was 37"!) This was a change
from the older ... and still 'relatively' standard measure on the continent
of 27" ... which is the 3/4 of an English yard or (as described above) Scottish
ell.

However these measurements varied from Country to Country & town to town 
'a Flemish ell' varied between regions & was different to the Paris ell.

I'm not sure of the origin of the change ... but, from memory, the length
of the ell in England changed for tax reasons ... both at the Conquest & 
later ... the version I recall goers something like ... you make cloth 1 ell
wide or I fine you ... so you make a loom to make cloth that size ... then
the ell becomes longer ... your cloth is now under assize ... you get fined !
Seems a bit simplistic to me but you never know !

I have a suspicion that the ell WAS originally 18" ... elbow to fist ... but where I got that from I haven't the foggiest ... some Norse thing or other ... so be VERY careful on the last 2 paragraphs!!!

Hope this was helpful/of interest
Cheers
Dave

From: Fideli <jfideli at suffolk.lib.ny.us>
To: Mark Harris
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 20:49:30 -0500 (EST)
Subject: shorts, for fill in

                    TRADITIONAL BEER MEASURES

1 nip     = .25 pint
1 small   = .5 pint
1 large   = 1 pint
1 flagon  = 1 quart
1 anker   = 10 gallons
1 firkin  = 9.8 gallons
1 barrel  = 31.5 gallons
1 hogshead= 2 barrels = 63 gallons
1 butt    = 2 hogsheads = 126 gallons
1 tun     = 2 butts = 252 gallons

     Found by Lord Xaviar the Eccentric

                          WINE MEASURES

                    TRADITIONAL WINE MEASURES
10 gallons     = 1 anker
1 hogshead     = 1 pipe
2 hogshead     = 1 tun
1 puncheon     = 84 gallons
1 butt         = 126 gallons

                        WINE BOTTLE SIZE

Minature  = 100 ml
Small     = 187 ml (split)
Medium    = 375 ml
Regular   = 750 ml
Large     = 1 Liter
Magnum    = 1.5 L
Extra Large= 3 L

                     CHAMPAGNE BOTTLE SIZES

Split          =    .25 bottle
Pint           =    .5 bottle
Bottle         =    .75 liters = 26 fl oz
Magnum         =    1.5 l = 2 bottles
Jeroboam       =    3 l = 4 bottles
Rehoboam       =    4.5 l = 6 bottles
Methuselah     =    6 l = 8 bottles
Salmanazar     =    9 l = 12 bottles
Balthazar      =    12 l = 16 bottles
Nebuchadnezzar =    15 l = 20 bottles

     Transcribed by Josef Barleycorn head brewer for
     Lord Xaviar the Eccentric.     

From: manth at ozemail.com.au (Aramanth Dawe)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Conversions
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 06:45:01 GMT
Organization: OzEmail Ltd - Australia

Norvell Molex <gandolph at bds1.kode.net> wrote:

>There are many excellant recipes at on the online section of Cariadocs
>& Elizabeth's recipes however some of the measurement are given in 
>metrics. Being new to the cooking business I am not well versed in the 
>conversions. Also some of the recipes seem to rotate between fluid and
>solid. Could someone, anyone please help a gentleman out of a jam.

>Norvell Molex
>Aka: Brian MacQuarrey

Metric conversion is not too hard to manage - although Australian
cookbooks have been metric for a couple of decades now, I have also
successfully used recipes form my mothers and grandmother's books.
There are about 28g to the oz, but I find (for ease of mental
arithmetic) that consitant use of 30g (or 2 measuring tablespoons)
works well.  For fluid measurements - 250ml is equivalent to 1
standard 8oz measuring cup.  I hope this helps.  

I haven't tried out any of the recipes you're talking about - but now
that I know they're there, I'll certainly give them a try.

Aramanth de Warrene
(mka Aramanth Dawe) 

From: "Philip W. Troy" <troy at asan.com>
To: sca-cooks at eden.com
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 19:38:21 -0400
Subject: Re: sca-cooks - subtleties

Mark Schuldenfrei wrote:
>   > So, as I alluded to in earlier posts, half the fun is figuring out what to
>   > do.  What do you think the original says?  I'll repeat it here.
> 
>   That and how long a Whalme is!!
> 
> Context, please?  This is ringing a bell.
> 
> I think what I liked best, was the translation in Caterina's German work, of
> timing something "A League and Back".  The end result was to find out how
> much distance a league was in that time and place, use US Government figures
> for average walking pace, and time the cooking that way...
> 
>         Tibor (For me, a paternoster takes no time at all!)

Would you folks be referring to a walm? That is an unspecified time; the
modern equivalent instruction to letting something boil for one walm (or
presumably a whalme) is to bring it to a boil once. Using a heat source
far less easily controlled than what we generally use today, cooking
times were often measured by letting food come to a boil, drawing the
pot away from the fire to cool a bit, then bringing it back to a boil.
This process is repeated for the specified number of times. This is very
common in later-period recipes such as you find in Elinor Fettiplace or
Gervase Markham.

Adamantius

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 20:34:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Fideli <jfideli at suffolk.lib.ny.us>
To: Chroniclers --mark_harris at quickmail
Subject: Greetings...just some small tidbits for you...

A Clove by any other name?

     Clove, a weight used in England of six and one-half, seven, or
eight pounds (2948, 3.175, or 3.629 kilograms) for cheese, wool,
metals, and other agricultural and nonagricultural goods.  Commonly
called a half-stone, it was ultimately derived etymologically from
the Latin clavus (nail).  One of the most frequently used weights
in mediebal England, the clobe appeared in the documents with such
variant spellings as claw, clawe, clou, cloue, claue, clavbe,
cleaue, and cleave.
                       Ronald Edward Zupko

     Strayer, Joseph R; Dictionary of the Middle Ages, Vols
1,3,5,10,13. Charles Scribners sons, NY. 1982.

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 10:14:25 -0500
From: "Decker, Terry D." <TerryD at Health.State.OK.US>
Subject: RE: SC - Plum Pudding

>My deepest thanks...one question....how large is a penny loaf?
>Dragonfyr

I believe the penny loaf is about 1 lb.  I don't have my English Bread
and Yeast Cookery to hand or I would check.

With a pint of milk and eight eggs to 1 lb of flour, 1 lb of bread
crumbs sounds about right.  The amounts are in Imperial measures, so
they will be slightly different from U.S. measures.

Bear

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:16:28 -0500
From: "Decker, Terry D." <TerryD at Health.State.OK.US>
Subject: RE: SC - Plum Pudding

To get back on subject, the penny loaf was the price of a loaf of bread
under the Assize of Bread established in 1266.  There were three
qualities of flour listed and three different weights of loaf.  In terms
of 17th and 18th century recipes, what is usually meant is the penny
white loaf (a manchet) which weighed between 6 and 8 ounces.  A wheat or
brown loaf would weigh 12 to 16 ounces.  

Elizabeth David recommends using 81 to 85 percent extraction wheat meal
with a small proportion of unbleached white flour enriched with milk and
eggs to approximate Jacobean or Georgian manchets.  

So, my guess at a 1 lb. loaf is half off.

Bear

Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 13:18:51 -0600
From: "Decker, Terry D." <TerryD at Health.State.OK.US>
Subject: RE: SC - Re: sca-cooks V1 #460

>"A pint's a pound, the world around". That's a pound as a measure of weight,
>not a currency unit ;^D.
>
>Aoife

Tain't necessarily so.  A dry pint = 1/64 bushel.  A U.S. bushel =
2150.4 Cu. inches.  An Imperial bushel = 2219.4 cu. inches.  Weight in
either case would depend on the density of the material being wieghed.

As a point of interest, the U.S. uses the Winchester bushel which
equates to about 54 lbs of wheat and Great Britian uses the London
bushel which equates to about 60 lbs of wheat.  Both measures were in
use in medieval England, causing some interesting problems.

Both the U.S. and Great Britain use a 16 oz lb which are approximately
equivalent.

The U.S. gallon is a wine gallon of 231 cu. inches or approximately 8
lbs.  The Imperial gallon is based on 10 lbs of pure water at 62 degrees
F equaling 277.42 cu. inches.

The liquid pint = 1/8 of a gallon = 16 oz. U.S. (1 lb.) = 20 oz.
Imperial (1.25 lb).

So a pint's a pound only if you're measuring a liquid with the density
of water in a U.S. 1 pint measuring cup.

Bear

P.S.  The pound as a measure of currency is a measure of weight with
variable value.  Dats da nature of economics.

Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 22:06:44 -0800
From: david friedman <ddfr at best.com>
Subject: RE: SC - Re: sca-cooks V1 #460

At 11:58 AM -0800 12/4/97, kat wrote:
>Bear writes:
>> P.S.  The pound as a measure of currency is a measure of weight with
>> variable value...
>
>...and is primarily dependent on where you're located.  For example, a
>pound, in London, is currently worth about $1.68; but a pound in Beirut is
>only worth about six-hundredths of a penny...
>
>       - kat (who wishes she didn't have to know all this stuff, really...)

The pound started out meaning a pound of silver pennies (the Carolingian
monetary reform). It's been downhill from there.

David/Cariadoc
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/

Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 00:42:17 -0800
From: david friedman <ddfr at best.com>
Subject: RE: SC - Re: sca-cooks V1 #460

At 10:27 AM +1100 12/9/97, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>Assuming we are thinking of GBP Pounds Sterling (so-called) I think a
>pound of silver pennies has appreciated a bit.
>Charles

The pound sterling is one of the descendants of the pound defined by the
Carolingian monetary reform--which, incidentally, was a unit of account,
not an actual coin. Initially, 240 pennies weighed a pound. When the penny
was debased over time, instead of defining a pound as "the number of
pennies that weighs a pound, however much that is" they defined a pound as
240 pennies.

For the long version, see Carlo Cippola, _Money, Prices and Civilization in
the Mediterranean World_. A good book.

David Friedman
Professor of Law
Santa Clara University
ddfr at best.com
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/

Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 11:02:17 -0800
From: david friedman <ddfr at best.com>
Subject: Re: SC - Middle East-Help needed

At 10:34 AM -0400 4/5/98, LrdRas wrote:
>An observation on the Andalusian translation in the Miscellany> The transaltor
>seems to equate 1 uqiya with 1 once.

The uqiya/ratl system, like the troy system and unlike the avoirdupois, has
twelve ounces to the pound.

David/Cariadoc

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 14:47:31 -0400
From: Nick Sasso <Njs at mccalla.com>
Subject: RE: SC - Rarity of Fermantation recipes (was Fermented Beverage

Even wonder what they used for timing and
thermometers in the brewing; afterall, yeast is VERY temperature
sensitive.

niccolo difrancesco
********************************************************************************

My friend Geoffrey is doing some research into period brewing.
Admittedly, most of his documentation is late period, it is still pretty cool.
He was wondering himself how they dealt with temperature. ........  I am
going to forward this to him and see if he will write something about this
if you are interested.

Yours,
Avelina
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aveline,
I will greatly appreciate any information you would proffer on this.  What
I am familiar with is pretty remarkable.  Recipes refer to quantities of
boiling water (hard boil) mixed with room temp water to get a certain
'ideal' for mashing stages or pitching, or whatever.  We marvelled and
said 'these poor, technologically deprived boobs....don't they wish they
had thermometers and watches?'.

Well, the crow was mighty tasty that night as we mixed the amounts
listed and came within 2-4 degreesF of the temps listed in our high
falooting brewing guides.  I suppose they were the Masters after all!
After a time, you get to know by touch.  I can tell the proper temperature
to pitch yeast in a carboy (70 F or less) by touch.  Primarily because I've
felt the warmth so many times before pitching the yeast and it being
TOO WARM!  Reputedly, a brewer would run his finger through the top
of a pot of water as it heated to determine proper temp.  The number of
times he could do so wouild tell him if hot enough.

As for time, one reference we found has directions to boil something for
a 'furlong' or some such.  We had to really look and cogitate to figure out
that that was the time it took to walk a 'furlong' and back.  Pretty
ingenious.  Or another that told of three tuns of time......a tun is a vessel
used to hold water.....time to fill it at the stream three times.  Brilliant
people compared to our electronic dependent lives.

pax et bonum,
niccolo difrancesco

Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 18:52:42 EDT
From: LrdRas at aol.com
Subject: SC - thriddendele-more readable

In a message dated 9/21/98 5:34:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
mfgunter at fnc.fujitsu.com writes:

<< http://pleth.Princeton.EDU/cgi-bin/OED/oed-id?id=493538280 >>

Cindy, the info you sent was fascinating. Hope you don't mind that I',m
reposting it in a more readable form. :-)

OED Entry Search
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

thirdendeal

'thirdendeal. Obs. Forms: 1 priddan dæl; 4 pridden-, 4-5 thridden-, 5
threden-, thredden-, thryden-, thyrdyn-, 6 thirdin-, thyrden-, (thirding-, 7
thurron-), 6-8 thirden-; 4-5 -del, 5-7 -dele, 6 -deale, deall, 7 -dell, 7-8
- -deal; 4-6 (9 dial.) -dale. OE. (pone) priddan dæl, accus. case of (se) pridda
dæl the third part (see thirdel, deal sb.1, dale2). Cf. halfendeal,
farthingdeal.

1. The third part of anything; a third.

•C. 1000 Sax. Leechd. I. 98 Seope on wætere to priddan dæle;

•C. 1000 Sax. Leechd. II. 120 Bewyl op priddan dæl;

•13.. Guy Warw. (A.) 7306 + st. 65 Thriddendel his lond haue he schold.

•14.. E.E. Misc. (Warton Cl.) 72 With the thyrdyndele of gume, and twyse so
mych of water.

•A. 1500 in Arnolde Chron. (1811) 147 Euery Sonday a soule out of purgatory
and the thredden dele of al synnes releced.

•1558 Warde tr. Alexis' Secr. i. i. (1580) 37 b, Drinke thereof two
thirdendales of a glassefull.

•1581 J. Bell Haddon's Answ. Osor. 459 b, A thyrdendeale of the Crowne of
Thornes is shewed at Paris in the Holy Chappell there.

2. A third of a tun; = tertian B. 2.

•1423 Rolls of Parlt. IV. 256/1 Thredendels and hoggeshedes so aftur lesse
mesure.

•14.. MS. Cantab. Ff. 5. 48, lf. 55 b (Hartshorne Anc. Metr. T. (1829) 54),
Hit holdis a gode thrydendele Ful of wyne euery mele.

3. (See quots.)

•1571 in Shaks. Jahrbuch (1896) 142 The hooped pot commonly called a
thirdindeale and a half thirdindeale.

•1590 [Tarlton] News Purgat. (1844) 114 When Tapsters..Fill thirdingdeall pots
till the drinke run ouer.
•1620 Melton Astrolog. 32 Many of them dare not goe to bed without a
Thurrondell Pot of six shillings Beere.

•1678 Phillips (ed. 4), Thirdendeal, a Liquid Measure used in Salisbury
containing three Pints.

•1721 in Bailey.

Ras

Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 11:01:52 EDT
From: THLRenata at aol.com
Subject: SC - Re:  How Much Juice?

Angeline asks:
>>How much juice do you get out of the average lemon and the average
orange?<<

According to the equivalents chart in the BH&G Cookbook

1 medium lemon = 3T juice, 2 t. shredded peel
1 medium orange = 1/3 to 1/4 cup juice, 4 T shredded peel

Renata
Barony of Altavia
Kingdom of Caid
Los Angeles, CA

Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 22:40:17 EST
From: LrdRas at aol.com
Subject: Re: SC - Verzusum

phlip at bright.net writes:

<< First, what sort of ounce is he saying- volume, or weight? >>

When cooking from Platina I have always used the 2 tablspoons = 1 ounce rule of
thumb. It has always produced satisfactory results so far. Try 1 tablspoon of
cinnamon which wouldn't be over much for a half cup of sugar plus the other
ingredients.

Ras

Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 17:58:18 -0500
From: "Pat LaPointe" <alisoun at bcn.net>
To: <sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu>
Subject: RE: Measurements

Styrbjorn Ulfhamr asked:
... if there were different measurements for ale?

According to Stuart Peachey, in Measures and Dates 1580-1660, Bristol:
Stuart Press, 1997, "Measures often differed with commodity so that a gallon
of beer was different in size from one of ale and also from one of wine."
Some liquid measurements from Peachey's book are found on page 8:

Measuring Wine

Volume

Liquid                      Litre

Gallon       8 pints    4.55 Varied with comodity 35 beer gals=42 wine gals
Wine Gallon                       3.74 1 gal wine =231 cubic inches.
Pottle       4 pints      2.27
Quart              2 pints      1.14
Pint                 1 pint            .568
Gill or Quadron .25 pint         .142 [Randle Holme: Academy of Armory
16823/339]
Spoonfull           .031[1/32]pint .018

Firkin  Quarter of a barrel [Websters New International Dictionary 1927)
Ale Firkin      8 gallons [Websters]
Beer firkin 9 gallons [Websters]
Runnlet Variable aprox 15 gallons [Websters]
Barrel  36 gallons depending on comodity [36 Beer, 32 Ale]
Hogshead        52.5 gallons [variable with comodity and region] [Websters]
Puncheon        2 barrels 72 gallons [Websters)
Pipe          2 hogsheads [Websters]
Butt          2 hogsheads [Websters]

Awme    poss french ell Aune
        poss dutch/german volume 30-35 gallons-136-159 liters

Wine Oil or Honey
Tun            2 butts
Butt or Pipe 2 hogsheads
Hogshead         2 barrels
Tierce   1.5 barrels
Barrel   1.75 Rundlet
Barrel   2 kilderkin
Wine Barrel     31.5 Gallons
Ale Barrel      32 Gallons
Beer Barrel     36 Gallons
Rundlet 18 gallons
Aqua Vitae Barrel       10 gallons [Scottish Import Regulations 1611]
Gallon  2 pottles
Wine Gallon     8 pound tory weight

Stock fish and Herring 10,000 to the last which is 12 ale barrels
Salmond and Eels Some measure them by ale measures.[Randle Holme: Academy of
Armory 1682 3/260]

Looking up the terms in the OED would give a start date for their usage.
That wasn't Peachey's intent in providing the list of terms.  His intent was
to provide modern definitions for mesures encountered in Elizabethan and
Stuart documents.

Alisoun

Mistress Alisoun Fortescue of Maplehurst in the Barony of Bergental, 
East Kingdom, 1585
Pat LaPointe in Western Massachusetts, 1998

Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 23:50:53 -0600
From: "I. Marc Carlson" <LIB_IMC at centum.utulsa.edu>
To: sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Measurements

<styrbjorn at juno.com (Skip Wilder)>
>The measurements Marc gave are certainly quite helpful.  Here are
>some I ran across in an old newsletter.  I have no way of
>verifying these and do not know the original source.  Perhaps
>someone out there has more info.  These are supposed to be
>traditional wine measurements, but I wonder if they are Medieval
>and if there were different measurements for ale?  Also does
>anyone know what a 'flagon' is and how much it measures?  (My
>dictionary says that it is a pottery vessel with a lid and spout
>holding about two quarts.)

Let me check my _Historical Measures, Weights, Calendars, & Money
of all Nations_ (I don't have any of the other sources with me)...

>...
>Traditional Wine Measures:
>10 gallons         =1 anker
>1 hogshead    =1 pipe
>2 hogsheads   =1 tun
>1 puncheon    =84 gallons
>1 butt        =126 gallons

Hogshead of Claret.....................46 gallons
Butt of Sherry........................103 "
Pipe of Port or Masden................115 "
Pipe of Madeira or Cape................92 "
Pipe of Teneriffe.....................100 "
Pipe of Lisbon or Bucellas............117 "
Butt of Tent, Malaga, or Mountain.....105 "
Aum of Hock, Moselle, or other German Wines..30 "
Pipe of Marsala or Bronti..............93 "
Puncheon of Scotch Wiskey.............110-130 "
Puncheon of Brandy....................110-120 "
Hogshead of Brandy.....................55-60 "
Puncheon of Rum........................90-100 "

A hogshead is 1/2 a Pipe, Butt or Puncheon
A quartercask is 1/4 of "
An Octave is 1/8 of "

English Wine and Spirit measure
4 gills = 1 pint
2 pints = 1 quart
4 quarts = 1 gallon
36 gallons = 1 tierce
54 gallons = 1 1/2 tierces = 1 hogshead
108 gallons = 2 hogsheads = 1 pipe, butt, or puncheon.

Ale, Beer or Porter measurements
4 gills = 1 pint
2 pints = 1 quart
4 quarts = 1 gallon
9 gallons = 1 firkin
2 firkins = 18 gallons = 1 kilderkin
2 kilderkins = 36 gallons = 1 barrel
3 kilderkins = 54 gallons = 1 hogshead
2 hogsheads = 108 gallons = 1 butt
2 butts = 216 gallons = 216 gallons

Before 1824
The Wine gallon = 231 cubic inches
The Corn Gallon = 268.8 cubic inches
The Ale gallon = 282 cubic inches
(The post-1824 Imperial Gallon = 277.274 cubic inches)
============

Marc

Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 16:41:10 -0500
From: Maggie Allen <maggiea at empireone.net>
To: sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Melanie's Measurements

There is a Complete Anachronist entitle Period Metrology: A  Study of Measurement, Volumes 81 and 82 (it didn't all fit in one) by Master Grant Graeme de Menteith that is very well put together and as seems as complete as something like this can get.  It's far more complicated than  I want to think about at any one time but it does make a wonderful reference.  I haven't used it very much but every now and then I come across something in my reading that I have to look up to figure out how much it equals in some term that I can imagine (the book includes conversion info too).  Let's just say to the mathematically inept it is a godsend.

Margarita Kofinopoia (called Maggie Basketmaker)

Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 21:01:27 -0800
From: david friedman <ddfr at best.com>
Subject: Re: SC - An introduction and hopefully a quick query

At 8:39 AM +0800 12/7/98, Matthew Legge wrote:
> I was browsing the recipes of the cookbooks and was
>trying to convert the measurements to metric when I found that there are
>two different sets (at least) of pound weights and matching volume measures
>in use today. Which one should I use? The one where 2.2 pounds = 1kg or the
>other one?

In the US, weights are almost always avoirdupois; troy is used for precious
metals and not much else. So a kg is 2.2 lbs, and there are 16 ounces to
the pound. A gallon contains four quarts, each of two pints, and a pint of
water weighs about a pound.

If you happen to be working with medieval Islamic recipes, it is worth
knowing that "ratl" and "uqiya," sometimes translated "pound" and "ounce,"
are from a system with 12 ounces to a pound, which I think is also true of
the troy system.

David/Cariadoc
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 10:22:55 -0600
From: "Decker, Terry D." <TerryD at Health.State.OK.US>
Subject: RE: SC - An introduction and hopefully a quick query

> << If you happen to be working with medieval Islamic recipes, it is worth
>  knowing that "ratl" and "uqiya," sometimes translated "pound" and "ounce,"
>  are from a system with 12 ounces to a pound, which I think is also true
>  of the troy system.
>
>  David/Cariadoc >>
>
> So is the ounce bigger or is  it the same ounce? What I mean is that if the
> ratl is 12 oz. = 1 1/2 cp liquid then is the uqiya still 1 oz=2 tblsps liquid?
> This is how I have been doing it and have had consistently successful
> results.
>
> Ras

I believe you will find that the Troy or apothecary measures are strictly
weight based.  Troy and avoirdupois measures are based a standard grain of
64 milligrams.

A Troy oz is 480 grains.  A Troy pound is 12 Troy oz or 5,760 grains.

An avoirdupois ounce is 437.5 grains.  An avoirdupois pound is 16 oz or
7,000 grains.

The variation is less than 10 per cent, which means it has minimal effect
given the innaccuracies of volume measure.

Bear

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 17:01:52 -0800
From: david friedman <ddfr at best.com>
Subject: Re: SC - An introduction and hopefully a quick query

At 10:40 AM -0500 12/7/98, LrdRas at aol.com wrote:
> ddfr at best.com writes:
>
><< If you happen to be working with medieval Islamic recipes, it is worth
> knowing that "ratl" and "uqiya," sometimes translated "pound" and "ounce,"
> are from a system with 12 ounces to a pound, which I think is also true of
> the troy system.
>
> David/Cariadoc >>
>
>So is the ounce bigger or is  it the same ounce? What I mean is that if the
>ratl is 12 oz. = 1 1/2 cp liquid then is the uqiya still 1 oz=2 tblsps liquid?
>This is how I have been doing it and have had consistently successful results.

From the notes at the end of Charles Perry's translation of the Andalusian
cookbook:

1 ratl (< the Greek litra < the Roman libra)=12 ûqiyas; in 13th century
Andalusia, 1 ratl=468.75 g, about a pound
1 ûqiya (< the Roman uncia)=10 dirham; in 13th century Andalusia, 1
ûqiya=39 g, about 1 1/3 ounces or 7 teaspoons

Presumably the exact quantities might have been different in other times
and places.

David/Cariadoc

Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 10:48:58 -0600
From: "I. Marc Carlson" <LIB_IMC at centum.utulsa.edu>
To: sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: RE: Stride measure by leg length? [SCA]

<Gwen Morse <goldmoon at northeast.net>>
>...form (say...ankle to ankle), not the complete stride on the ground. This
>is to compute tolerances for tunic/gown fullness.

Something to consider, as a rule of thumb, while we keep looking for you...

The "Pace" (say, left-right-left) is 5 feet (60").  Half that, or one step,
would be 30", which is what the Army always taught me was the correct length
of stride when marching.   From that, a thousand paces would be 1 (Roman)
mile (from Mile "a thousand") or 5000 feet.

Marc/Diarmaid

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 15:31:29 EST
From: LrdRas at aol.com
Subject: SC - PECK

peck [1] (noun)

[Middle English pek, from Middle French]

First appeared 13th Century

 1 : either of two units of dry capacity equal to 1/4 bushel:

   a : a U.S. unit equivalent to 537.605 cubic inches

   b : a British imperial unit equivalent to 554.84 cubic inches

 2 : a large quantity or number

bush*el [1] (noun)

[Middle English busshel, from Old French boissel, from (assumed) Old  French
boisse one sixth of a bushel, of Celtic origin; akin to Middle Irish  boss
breadth of the hand]

First appeared 14th Century

 1 : any of various units of dry capacity as

   a : a unit of dry capacity used in the United States equal to 2150.42
cubic
inches

   b : a British imperial unit of dry and liquid capacity equal to 2219.36
cubic inches or 8 imperial gallons

 2 : a container holding a bushel

 3 : a large quantity : LOTS <makes ~s of money>

Ras

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 8:51:26 -0600
From: "I. Marc Carlson" <LIB_IMC at centum.utulsa.edu>
To: sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: RE: 40-60 acres Land Holding

<Andrea Bain <the_green_eyed_cat at yahoo.com>>
>> I'm sorry, why are you saying the Medieval acre was smaller than the
>> modern one?  That would really have to do with where you were from and
>> the local standards for units of measurement like the foot (which were
>> often larger than the modern foot).
>Didn't you just say about the foot, exactly what was said about the
>acre?

No, I didn't.  Her comment states unequivocally that at some earlier time
the Acre was smaller than it is now.  Begining with the reign of Edw I, the
acre has been defined as a furlong x 32 furrows, or the amount of land an
ox could plow in one day.  This was eventually regularized to 40x4 poles,
or 4840 sq yards.  Before 5 Edw I, the acre referred to land of about that
size, but without any solid definiton.  It was never smaller than a furlong
x 32 furrows.

On the other hand, the measurement of a Foot, not being based on something
generally unchangeable, and having no set standard, varied quite a bit
in size.  In France, for example, the Pied (or "foot") is said to have
equaled 12.08 English inches, but really this only refers to the Parisian
foot, since every other district and region had its own standards for what
contituted a foot, a pound (livre) or gallon (the French development of the
Metric system had a real *reason*).  In England things weren't quite that
bad, and the variation between inches really only varied a little.  But if
you are measureing your "acres" by the foot, a variation of an inch per foot
could alter the outcome by as much as... Well, my bad a math skills tell me
that doing so would make a yard 171,610 square (standard) yards, which
sounds way off, but it would be a considerable amount.

Marc/Diarmaid

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 20:41:36 -0500
From: "Decker, Terry D." <TerryD at Health.State.OK.US>
Subject: RE: SC - Saffron

> The Pepperer's Guild lists it for $$6.00/dwt. I don't know what a dwt is.
>
> ~Maedb

dwt or pwt = pennyweight = 1/20 Troy ounce = approx. 1.555 grams

Bear

Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 11:20:17 -0400
From: snowfire at mail.snet.net
Subject: RE: SC - Saffron

- -Poster: Jean Holtom <Snowfire at mail.snet.net>

>> The Pepperer's Guild lists it for $$6.00/dwt. I don't know what a dwt is.
>>
>> Hope this helps
>> ~Maedb
>>
>dwt or pwt = pennyweight = 1/20 Troy ounce = approx. 1.555 grams

Because d is the way we used to denote pennies in the old pre-decimal British
currency - Four shillings and three pence (or "threpence" as it was
pronounced) would be written 4s 3d (or 4/3 "four and three").

Bring back the old money!

Elysant

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 21:29:29 -0500
From: "Decker, Terry D." <TerryD at Health.State.OK.US>
Subject: RE: SC - A weird conversion.....Now OT

> >That shouldn't be difficult.  The US measures are taken from the pre-1825
> >British measures.
>
> News to me!  Do you have any more on this please?
>
> Elysant

U.S. liquid measures are based on the British wine gallon of 231 cubic
inches and 128 ounces.  This was the standard British measure until 1825
when Great Britain fixed the gallon as 10 pounds of water at 62 degrees F
and introduced Imperial measures.

The U.S. bushel is based on the Winchester bushel of 60 pounds.

U.S. measures are essentially based on standards used in medieval England,
which were replaced by the Imperial measures.  Of course there are some
problems with the standardness of the old standards.

Bear

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 09:05:28 -0000
From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Nanna_R=F6gnvaldard=F3ttir?=" <nannar at isholf.is>
Subject: Re: SC - Mead recipes from the Danish cookbook

Ras wrote:
>You're going to keep us in the dark about lispunds aren't you? "-)

Nope, only those of you unfamiliar with the metric system. If you follow the
asterisk trail, you will see that I explained a lispund is around 8 kilos
(something like 17 lbs). The term comes from Low German lispunt and means
originally "Livonian pound".

I'm not sure how large the barrels in question should be (I think it might
be something like 136 liters).

Nanna

Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 09:03:39 -0500
From: Richard Keith <keith.78 at osu.edu>
Subject: Re: SC - measurements

There is a book about Italian weights and measure that details by area, town
how big a cup is etc in that area.  I will look through my notes from last
Pennsic to see if I can find it.

Frederich

From: "Brian Songy" <bsongy at louisiana.edu>
To: <sca-cooks at ansteorra.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 09:38:45 -0600
Subject: [Sca-cooks] Following a recipe...

THL Stefan li Rous, Archivist Non Pareil, asked:
        But presumeably the folks for whom these recipes were written
        would be familar with these. We have briefly talked about these
        sorts of timings before, but I can't remember if someone gave
        us non-Catholics some numbers to use instead.

        So, in your opinion, what would be a reasonable range in time
        for each of these? In other words, when spoken at a normal
        speed and if one was reciting a well-known, memorized set of
        verses? Although I suspect that if this was used as a timing
        piece that it would have been said about the same each time and
        not rushed.

Well Stefan, this is what I managed to put together:

Timing of Common Catholic Prayers

Title
In Latin                                In English

Gloria
time: 13 seconds +/- 2 seconds
http://www.unidial.com/~martinus/thesaurus/Basics/GloriaPatri.html 

Gloria Patri,                   Glory, to the Father,
et Filio,                       and the Son, and the
et Spiritui Sancto.             Holy Spirit.
Sicut erat in principio,        As it was in
et nunc, et semper,             the beginning, is now, and
et in saecula saeculorum.       ever shall be, world without end.
Amen.                           Amen.

Shorter Version of the Ave Maria
time: 13 seconds        +/- 2 seconds
 (taken from Luke 1:28 and Luke 1:42)

Ave Maria gratia plena          Hail Mary, full of Grace,
Dominus tecum.                  the Lord is with you.
Benedicta tu in mulieribus      Blessed are you amoung women,
et benedictus fructus           And blessed is the fruit of
ventris tui, Jesus. Amen.       your womb Jesus. Amen.

Longer version of Ave Maria 
time: 21 seconds +/- 2 seconds
http://www.unidial.com/~martinus/thesaurus/Basics/AveMaria.html Dominus

AVE Maria, gratia plena,        Hail Mary, full of Grace,
tecum.                          the Lord is with you.
Benedicta tu in mulieribus,     Blessed are you amoung women,
et benedictus fructus           and blessed is the fruit of
ventris tui, Iesus.             your womb, Jesus.

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei,        Holy Mary, mother of God,
ora pro nobis peccatoribus,     pray for us sinners, now and
nunc, et in hora mortis         at the hour of our death.
nostrae. Amen.                  Amen.

Pater Noster (taken from Matthew 6: 9-13)

PATER noster,                   Our Father,
qui es in caelis,               Who art in heaven,
sanctificetur nomen tuum.       hallowed be thy name.
Adveniat regnum tuum.           Thy kingdom come.
Fiat voluntas tua,              Thy will be done,
sicut in caelo et in terra.     on earth as it is in heaven.
Panem nostrum quotidianum       Give us this day our daily
da nobis hodie,                 bread, and forgive us our
et dimitte nobis debita         trepasses, as we forgive
nostra sicut et nos             those who trepass against
dimittimus debitoribus          us.  And lead us not into
nostris. Et ne nos inducas      temptation but deliver us
in tentationem, sed libera      from evil.  Amen.
nos a malo. Amen

(Five Decade) Rosary
consists of some introductory prayers, and then five
"decades", with each decade cconsisting of a pater noster, 
ten Ave Maria's, and one Gloria.

time: ~20 minutes - I had difficulty with making accurate

Full (Fifteen Decade) Rosary
consist of some introductory prayers, and then fifteen
"decades", with each decade cconsisting of a pater noster, 
ten Ave Maria's, and one Gloria.

time: 1 Hour - I had difficulty with making accurate prayers, and then

The times were generated by timing myself saying the latin form of the
prayer three times and taking the median measurement

Note that I converted to Catholicism three years ago; I'm not particularly
skilled at saying these prayers quickly.

A collection of Latin resources, including common Catholic prayers, can be
found at: http://www.unidial.com/~martinus/Thesaurus.html

Also, this web page references the stability of the prayers in latin, vice
other languages: http://www.unidial.com/~martinus/thesaurus/Introductio.html

Brian Songy
Manager, Computer Services
UL Lafayette-NIRC

Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 12:57:13 -0700
From: David Friedman <ddfr at daviddfriedman.om>
Subject: Re: [Sca-cooks] Andalusian measurements
To: mirhaxa at morktorn.com, Cooks within the SCA
	<sca-cooks at ansteorra.org>

> Is there a lst somewhere (Cariadoc's maybe?) which translates the
> measurements from Andalusian recipes, ratl and dirham and uqiya?
>
> Mirhaxa

It's included in the Perry translation webbed on my site. The
information on measurements is at:

http://www.daviddfriedmn.com/Medieval/Cookbooks/Andalusian/ 
andalusian10.htm#Heading541
-- 
David/Cariadoc
www.daviddfriedman.com

Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 10:46:35 -0400
From: jah at twcny.rr.com
Subject: Re: [Sca-cooks] Andalusian measurements
To: sca-cooks at ansteorra.org

The Corning Glass museum a year or so ago
  had original weights that were kind of a green
  glass, and one was a "ratl"!
  It was very enlighting to see.

  Jules/Catalina

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 02:26:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Huette von Ahrens <ahrenshav at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Sca-cooks] Mrs. Penn's Apple Beer...
To: Cooks within the SCA <sca-cooks at ansteorra.org>

Stefan enquired:
> What is the volume of a hogshead?

A hogshead is a unit of volume for alcoholic
beverages in the imperial system. A hogshead of
wine is 63 gallons. A hoghead of beer or ale is
54 gallons.

Huette

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 17:11:14 -0600
From: "Terry Decker" <t.d.decker at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: [Sca-cooks] Hogshead was Mrs. Penn's Apple Beer...
To: "Cooks withinthe SCA" <sca-cooks at ansteorra.org>

A hogshead is a measure of volume for liquids.  It was equivalent to 48
gallon of ale, 54 gallons of beer, 60 gallons of cider, 63 gallons of oil,
honey or wine, or 100 gallons of molasses.  These are not Imperial gallons,
but the traditional British gallon which is equivalent to the U.S. gallon.
The U.S. currently defines the hogshead as 2 barrels or 63 gallons.  the
U.S. hogshead measures 14553 cubic inches or about 8.422 cubic feet (238.48
liters).  In Imperial measure it is 1/2 butt or 52.5 Imperial gallons, being
8.429 cubic inches (238.67 liters).  The modern US and Imperoal hogsheads
are functionally equivalent.

Mrs. Penn's hogshead is probably 54 gallons.

Bear

> Awk! My first thought was that I've seen 15th and 16th Century recipes
> which were more understandable. But after re-reading it a couple of times
> it is clearer. "put it upon the malt" must mean pour it through malted
> grain. Lots of figuring out still to do, like "worke it like other bere".
> What is the volume of a hogshead?
>
> Stefan

Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 22:38:10 -0600
From: "margaret" <m.p.decker at att.net>
Subject: Re: [Sca-cooks] Dimensions
To: "Cooks within the SCA" <sca-cooks at ansteorra.org>

> I'm reading "On Divers Arts" and looking at the forge in the third book,
> chapter 3. Can anyone tell me how they're measuring here?
>
> Many of the measurements are in "fingers". Are we talking length or width?
> I know the measurement, "hands" was started, for horses, as the width of the
> palm, and has been standardized to 4 inches by equestrians, but I'm not sure
> about fingers.
>
> Also does anyone know, had they standardized "feet" by then? The book
> itself is believed to be 12th century, more German than anything else.
>
> Saint Phlip,

A finger (length) is 2 nails or about 4.5 inches.  A nail is 1/20 of an 
ell.

A finger (width) is roughly 3/4 of an inch.  A thumb (width) is roughly 1
inch.

The Roman foot is roughl 11.7 inches.  A competing measure, the natural
foot is 9.8 inches.  The modern foot of about 12 inches began to be used in
England some time after the Conquest and has roughly remained the same since
1300.  However, since the book is using fingers and ands, it is likely that
the foot mentioned is the manual foot, a Northern European measure
determined by two hands on a shaft, thumbs extended and touching, estimated
at 13.1 inches.

In the German states, the foot varied.  The Viennese foot is about 124
inches, the Rhine foot is about 12.36 inches and the Bavarian foot is about
11.6 inches.

Bear

Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 07:50:49 -0500
From: "Terry Decker" <t.d.decker at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: [Sca-cooks] Period Peeps?
To: "Cooks within the SCA" <sca-cooks at lists.ansteorra.org>

Spanish and Portuguese libra were a 16 onca pound ranging between 1.011 and
1.016 percent of the period English pound (avoirdupois, close to the modern
U.S. pound), so roughly 460 grams.

Bear

> Okay, some stupid questions that probably aren't issues, but might
> be. Is a pound sixteen modern ounces in this case? Again, what kind
> of sugar did you use? Ideally, you should be allowing each increment
> of added sugar to dissolve in the egg whites (eventually, it's
> probably icing rather than egg whites) before adding more.
>
> Adamantius

Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 19:07:38 -0500
From: "Terry Decker" <t.d.decker at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: [Sca-cooks] Not bagels, pretzels
To: "Cooks within the SCA" <sca-cooks at lists.ansteorra.org>

The Italian 'libra" was virtually equivalent to the Roman "libra pondo."  It
is a pound of 12 ounces weighing about .722 of the avoirdupois pound.

Bear

<the end>

Edited by Mark S. Harris	measures-msg	Page  of