4 ms·
That's a good question. Reading it charitably, one could interpret that to mean either 1) we can't reliably estimate alcohol by volume prior to the 19th century
by benbreen 10y ago
That's a good question. Reading it charitably, one could interpret that to mean either 1) we can't reliably estimate alcohol by volume prior to the 19th century because there weren't reliable tools to measure it or 2) pre-19th century people didn't think in terms of ABV, and that this may have meant that they experienced drunkenness differently on a subjective level. I'm generally anti-Whig but I'm with you on this one in hoping that there's more to it than that.
- mannykannot 10y agoThe article does mention some more quantitative methods for estimating potency, including working from recipes. Dr. Sumner may have reasons for doubting the efficacy of these methods. On reflection, I suspect that the article has mixed up two different arguments by Dr. Sumner, one about the estimates of potency, and a different one about how or whether we should judge these allegedly inebriated societies. Of course, Hogarth (among others) had something to say at what I think was a slightly later time, about the effects of cheap gin.