The history of baking in classical Greece and Italy can be clearly traced. Athenaeus in his Deipnosophists minutely describes many different kinds of bread, which may be assumed to have been currently used in Greece. According to Pliny (Nat. Hist, xviii. II. § 28) Rome had no public bakers till after the war with Perseus (171-168 B.C.). That long after public bakehouses came into use the Romans and other urban dwellers in Italy continued to make a great deal of bread at home is certain. In Pompeii several private houses had their own mill and bakehouse. That city must also have possessed bakers by trade, as loaves of bread have been found, round in form, and stamped with the maker’s name, possibly to fix responsibility for weight and purity. In the time of the Republic, public bakehouses were under the control of the aediles. Grain was delivered to the public granaries by the Saccarii, while another body called Catabolenses distributed the grain to the bakers. The latter were known as Pistores or “pounders,” a reminiscence no doubt of the primitive time when grain was pounded by a pestle in a mortar. Slaves were largely employed in the irksome work of grinding, and when Constantine abolished slavery the staff of the pistrinae was largely recruited from criminals. The emperor Trajan incorporated about A.D. 100 the college of Pistores (millers and bakers), but its members were employers, not operatives. The work of a bakery is depicted in a set of bas-reliefs on the tomb of a master Pistor named Eurysaces, who flourished about a century before the foundation of the college. Here the grain is being brought and paid for; mills driven by horse and ass (or mule) power are busy; men are sieving out the bran from the flour by hand (bolters); bakers are moulding loaves on a board; an oven of domelike shape is being charged by means of a shovel (peel); and baskets of bread are being weighed on the one hand and carried off on men’s backs on the other.
Regulation of Sale.—In the middle ages bakers were subjected to special regulations in all European lands. These regulations were supposed to be conceived in the interests of bread consumers, and no doubt were intended to secure fair dealing on the part of bread vendors. The legislators appear, however, to have been unduly biased against the baker, who was often beset by harassing restrictions. Bakers were formed into gilds, which were under the control, not only of their own officials, but of the municipality. In London the bakers formed a brotherhood as early as 1155, and were incorporated in 1307. There were two distinct corporate bodies concerned with bread-making, the Company of White Bakers and the Company of Brown Bakers; these were nominally united in 1509, but the union did not become complete till the middle of the 17th century. In Austria, bakers who offended against police regulations respecting the sale of bread were liable, until comparatively recent times, to fine, imprisonment and even corporal punishment. In Turkey the lot of the baker was very hard. Baron de Tott, writing of Constantinople in the 18th century, says that it was usual, when bread went to famine prices, to hang a baker or two. He would have us believe that it was the custom of master bakers to keep a second hand, who, in consideration of a small increase of his weekly wage, was willing to appear before the cadi in case a victim were wanted. A barbarous punishment, inflicted in Turkey and in Egypt on bakers who sold light or adulterated bread, consisted in nailing the culprit by his ear to the door-post of his shop. In France a decree of 1863 relieved bakers from many of the restrictions under which they previously suffered, but it did not touch the powers of the municipalities to regulate the quality and sale of bread. It left them the right conferred in 1791, to enforce the taxe du pain, the object of which was to prevent bakers from increasing the price of bread beyond a point justified by the price of the raw materials; but the right was exercised on their own responsibility, subject to appeal to higher authorities, and by a circular issued in 1863 they were invited to abolish this taxe officielle. In places where it exists it is fixed every week or fortnight, according to the average price of grain in the local markets.
In England an act of parliament was passed in 1266 for regulating the price of bread by a public assize, and that system continued in operation till 1822 in the case of the city of London, and till 1836 for the rest of the country. The price of bread was determined by adding a certain sum to the price of every quarter of flour, to cover the baker’s expenses and profit; and for the sum so arrived at tradesmen were required to bake and sell eighty quartern loaves or a like proportion of other sizes, which it was reckoned each quarter of flour ought to yield. The acts now regulating the manufacture and sale of bread in Great Britain are one of 1822 (Sale of Bread in the City of London and within 10 m. of the Royal Exchange), and the Bread Act of 1836, as to sale of bread beyond 10 m. of the Royal Exchange. The acts require that bread shall be sold by weight, and in no other manner, under a penalty not exceeding forty shillings. This does not, however, mean that a seller is bound to sell at any particular weight; the words quartern and half-quartern, though commonly used and taken to indicate a 4-℔ and 2-℔ loaf respectively, have no legal sanction. That is to say, a baker is not bound to sell a loaf weighing either 4 ℔ or 2; all he has to do, when a customer asks for a loaf, is to put one on the scale, weigh it, and declare the weight. When bread is sold over the counter it is usual for the vendor to cut off and tender a piece of bread to make up any deficiency in the loaf. This is known as the “overweight.” There is little doubt the somewhat misty wording of the bread acts lends itself to a good deal of fraudulent dealing. For instance, when bread is sold over the counter, two loaves may be 5 or 6 oz. short, while the piece of makeweight may not reach an ounce. The customer sees the bread put on the scale, but in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred does not trouble to verify the weight, and unless he expressly asks for 2 ℔ or some specific weight of bread, it is very doubtful whether the seller, having satisfied the letter of the law by placing the bread on the scales, could be convicted of fraud. The provision as to selling by weight does not apply to fancy bread and rolls. No exact definition of “fancy bread” has ever been laid down, and it must be largely a question of fact in each particular case. All bakers or sellers of bread must use avoirdupois weight, and must provide, in a conspicuous place in the shop, beams, scales and weights, in order that all bread there sold may from time to time be weighed in the presence of the purchaser. The penalty for using any other weight than avoirdupois is a sum not exceeding £5 nor less than forty shillings, and for failing to provide beams and scales a sum not exceeding £5. Also every baker and seller of bread, delivering by cart or other conveyance, must be provided with scales and weights for weighing bread; but since the Weights and Measures Act 1889, no penalty is incurred by omission to weigh, unless there has been a request on the part of the purchaser. The acts also define precisely what ingredients may be employed in the manufacture of bread, and impose a penalty not exceeding £10 nor less than £5 for the adulteration of bread. (See further under [Adulteration].)
Although the act of 1836 extends to the whole of the United Kingdom (Ireland excepted) out of the city of London and beyond 10 m. of the Royal Exchange, yet in many Scottish burghs this act is replaced by local acts on the sale of bread. These are in all cases of a much more stringent nature, requiring all batch or household bread to be stamped with the reputed weight. Any deficiency within a certain time from the withdrawal of the bread from the oven is an offence. The London County Council desired to introduce a similar system into the area under their jurisdiction, and promoted a bill to that effect in 1905, but it fell through. The bill was opposed not only by the National Association of Master Bakers, the London Master Bakers’ Protection Society, and by the West End metropolitan bakers in a body, but also by the Home Office, which objected to what it termed exceptional legislation.
It may be noted that the acts of 1822 and 1836 define precisely what may and may not be sold as bread. It is laid down in section 2 that “it shall and may be lawful ... to make and sell ... bread made of flour or meal of wheat, barley, rye, oats, buckwheat, Indian corn, peas, beans, rice or potatoes, or any of them, and with any (common) salt, pure water, eggs, milk, barm, leaven, potato or other yeast, and mixed in such proportions as they shall think fit, and with no other ingredients or matter whatsoever.”
Sanitation of Bakehouses.—The sanitary arrangements of bakehouses in England were first regulated by the Bakehouse Regulation Act 1863, which was repealed and replaced by the Factory and Workshop Act 1878; this act, with various amending acts, was in turn repealed and replaced by the Factory and Workshop Act 1901. By the act of 1901 a bakehouse is defined as a place in which are baked bread, biscuits or confectionery, from the baking or selling of which a profit is derived. The act of 1863 placed the sanitary supervision of bakehouses in the hands of local authorities; from 1878 to 1883 supervision was in the hands of inspectors of factories, but in 1883 the supervision of retail bakehouses was placed in the hands of local authorities. Under the act of 1901 the supervision of bakehouses which are “workshops” is carried out by local authorities, and for the purposes of the act every bakehouse is a workshop unless within it, or its close or curtilage or precincts, steam, water or other mechanical power is used in aid of the manufacturing process carried on there, in which case it is treated as a non-textile factory, and is under the supervision of factory inspectors.
The more important regulations laid down by the act are: (1) No water-closet, &c., must be within or communicate directly with the bakehouse; every cistern for supplying water to the bakehouse must be separate and distinct from any cistern supplying a water-closet; no drain or pipe for carrying off sewage matter shall have an opening within the bakehouse. (2) The interior of all bakehouses must be limewashed, painted or varnished at stated periods. (3) No place on the same level with a bakehouse or forming part of the same building may be used as a sleeping place, unless specially constructed to meet the requirements of the act. (4) No underground bakehouse (one of which the floor is more than 3 ft. below the surface of the footway of the adjoining street) shall be used unless certified by the district council as suitable for the purpose (see Redgrave, Factory Acts; Evans Austin, Factory Acts).
Bread Sluffs.—As compared with wheat-flour, all other materials used for making bread are of secondary importance. Rye bread is largely consumed in some of the northern parts of Europe, and cakes of maize meal are eaten in the United States. In southern Europe the meal of various species of millet is used, and in India and China durra and other cereal grains are baked for food. Of non-cereal flour, the principal used for bread-making is buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum), extensively employed in Russia, Holland and the United States. The flour of pease, beans and other leguminous seeds is also baked into cakes, and in South America the meal of the tapioca plant, Jatropha Manihot, is employed. But, excepting rye, none of these substances is used for making vesiculated or fermented bread.
A normal sample of wheat-flour consists roughly of 10 parts of moisture, 72 of starch, 14 of nitrogenous matter, 2.25 of fatty matters, and 1.75% of mineral matter. Starch is thus the predominating component; it is not, however, the Quality of flour. dough-forming ingredient. By itself, starch, when saturated with water, forms a putty-like mass devoid of coherence, and it is the gluten of the nitrogenous matter which is the binding constituent in dough-making, because when wetted it forms a more or less elastic body. The proportion of gluten in wheat-flour varies from 7 to 15%, but the mere quantity of gluten is by no means the only standard of the commercial value of the flour, the quality also counting for much. One of the functions of gluten is to produce a high or well-piled loaf, and its value for this purpose depends largely on its quality. This is turn depends largely on the variety of wheat; certain races of wheat are much richer in nitrogenous elements than others, but such wheats usually only flourish in certain countries. Soil and climate are undoubtedly factors in modifying the character of wheat, and necessarily therefore of the flour. The same wheat grown in the same soil will show very varying degrees of strength (i.e. of gluten) in different seasons. For instance, the north-western districts of America grow a hard spring wheat which in a normal season is of almost unequalled strength. In 1904 an excess of moisture and deficiency in sun in the Red River Valley during the critical months of June and July caused a serious attack of red and black rust in these wheat fields, the disease being more virulent in the American than the Canadian side of the valley. The result was that the quality of the gluten of that season’s American spring wheat was most seriously affected, its famed strength being almost gone. Wheat from the Canadian side was also affected, but not nearly to so great an extent. Flour milled from hard winter wheat in the American winter districts is sometimes nearly as strong as the spring wheat of the North-west. Hungarian flour milled from Theis wheat is also very strong, and so is the flour milled from some south Russian spring wheats. But here again the degree of strength will vary from season to season in a remarkable manner. In the main each land has its own clearly marked type of wheat. While the United States, Canada, Hungary and Russia are each capable of growing strong wheat, Great Britain, France and Germany produce wheat more or less weak. It follows that the bread baked from flour milled from wheat from British, French or German wheat alone would not make a loaf of sufficient volume, judged by present British standards. As a matter of fact, except in some country districts, British bakers either use strong foreign flour to blend with English country flour, or, more frequently, they are supplied with flour by British millers milled from a blend in which very often English wheat has a small, or no place at all. If the baker’s trade calls for the making of household bread, especially of the London type, he must use a strong flour, with plenty of staple gluten in it, because it is this element which supplies the driving or lifting force, without which a high, bold loaf cannot be produced. If the demand is for tin or (as it is called in many parts of the north of England) pan bread, a weaker flour will suffice, as the tin will keep it up. A Vienna loaf should be made with at least a certain proportion of Hungarian patent flour, which is normally the highest-priced flour in the market, though probably the bulk of the Vienna rolls made in London contain no Hungarian flour. A cake of flat shape can be very well made with a rather weak flour, but any cake that is required to present a domed top cannot be prepared without a flour of some strength.
It is a general opinion, though contested by some authorities, that soft, weak flours contain more flavour than strong, harsh flours. The strong wheats of the American and Canadian North-West make less flavoury flour than Flavour of flour. soft red winter from the American South-West. It would not, however, be correct to say that all strong wheats are necessarily less full of flavour than weak wheats. Hungarian wheat, for instance, is one of the strongest wheats of the world, but has a characteristic and pleasant flavour of its own. Indian wheats, on the other hand, are not particularly strong, but are liable to give a rather harsh flavour to the bread. English, French and German wheats, when harvested in good condition, produce flour of more or less agreeable flavour. None of these wheats could be classified as strong, though from each of those lands wheat of fair strength may be obtained under favourable meteorological conditions. The Australasian continent raises white wheat of fine quality which has much affinity with British wheat—it is the descendant in many cases of seed wheats imported from England—but it is occasionally stronger. The resultant flour is noted for its sweetness. Both millers and bakers who are concerned with the supply of high-class bread and flour make free use of what may be termed flavoury wheats. The proportion of English wheat used in London mills is very small, but millers who supply West-End bakeries with what is known as top-price flour are careful to use a certain amount of English wheat, if it is to be had in prime condition. They term this ingredient of their mixture “sugar.” London bakers again, with customers who appreciate nicely flavoured bread, will “pitch” into their trough a certain proportion of English country flour, that is, flour milled entirely or chiefly from English wheat, which under such conditions is strengthened by a blend of strong flour, a patent flour for choice. It has been objected that as English wheat contains a large proportion of starch, and as starch is admittedly destitute of flavour, there is no reason why flour milled from English wheat should possess a sweeter flavour than any other starchy wheat flour. Experience, however, has amply proved that well-ripened English wheat produces bread with an agreeable flavour, though it does not follow that all English wheat is under all conditions capable of baking bread of the highest quality. But it would be as fallacious to hold that weak flour is necessarily flavoury, as that all strong flour is insipid and harsh. Different wheats are undoubtedly possessed of different flavours, but not all these flavours are of a pleasing character. In some cases the very reverse is true. Californian and Australian wheats have occasionally aromatic odours, due to the presence of certain seeds, that will impart an objectionable flavour to the resultant bread.