Older and severer prohibitions are however to be found in other countries. By an order of William count of Hennegau, Holland and Zeeland, of the year 1327, we find that long before that period it was customary to adulterate wine with noxious and dangerous substances. In the year 1384 the government at Brussels issued a severer order of the like kind, in which vitriol, quicksilver and lapis calaminaris are mentioned[740]. In France we find an old ordonnance du prevôt de Paris, for the same purpose, dated September the 20th and December the 2nd, 1371, in which no minerals are mentioned; but in that of 1696 litharge is particularly noticed[741].
Conrade Celtes, who in the year 1491 was first crowned in Germany as a poet, gives in his panegyric on Nuremberg some information respecting the adulteration of wine, from which we learn that he considered it as a new invention, and ascribed it to a monk called Martin Bayr; but his expressions are so figurative, that little can be gathered from them[742]. We are however told by Zeller, that it was believed that this dangerous fraud was invented in France[743]. Martin Zeiler, in his Chronicle of Swabia (p. 65), says, “In the year 1453, the citizens of Augsburg began to observe this fraud in the wine-market; for during four years before, Martin Bayr, at Schwarzen-Eychen in Franconia, first taught the German tavern-keepers and the waggoners to preserve new wine from becoming sour; to clarify wine by sulphur; and likewise to counterfeit it by spices, to the great prejudice of people’s health.” In this passage there is no mention of litharge, but of other mixtures. The oldest account of the poisonous sweetening of wine is that which occurs in the French ordinance of 1696[744]; and Zeller’s conjecture that it was invented or first remarked in France, seems to me the more probable, as it appears that it was practised at Wurtemberg about the same period. In the year 1697 it was known there that some wine-merchants, particularly Hans George Staltser at Goppingen, used litharge for refining wine, and by these means deprived many persons of life, and occasioned the loss of health to others. Staltser pleaded in excuse, that he considered the process he had employed as harmless, and that Masskosky, physician to the town of Goppingen, who was accounted a man of knowledge, had employed the same for his wine. Brugel also, physician to the town of Heidenheim, had declared that litharge was not prejudicial; and as he was a person of reputation, his opinion had tended not a little to establish the use of that practice. This report was so hurtful to the wine-trade of Wurtemberg, which at that time brought a great deal of money into the duchy from other countries, that the wine at Ulm remained unsold; and duke Everhard Louis was obliged to cause experiments to be made to ascertain the nature of the substances mixed with it. Solomon Keysel, the duke’s physician, and J. Gaspar Harlin, physician to the court, both declared that litharge was noxious, but that sulphur besprinkled with bismuth was still more so. They strongly advised, therefore, that both these substances should be forbidden to be used, under the heaviest penalties; and this prohibition was put in force with the greater severity as some persons of the first rank had for several years before caused their spoiled and sour wine to be made sweet and clear in this manner by a weaver of Pforzheim, who resided at Stutgart. An order was issued on the 10th of May 1697, forbidding this adulteration under pain of death and confiscation of property, as well as of being declared infamous; and the duke requested the neighbouring states, particularly Bavaria and Eychstat, to keep a more watchful eye over their wine-merchants and waggoners, by which means it was supposed all danger would be avoided.
In the following year, the city of Ulm discovered a poor man at Giengen, within its own jurisdiction, who had sweetened with litharge some sour wine purchased at Wurtemberg. He was accordingly banished from the country; and several other persons in the duchy were condemned to labour at the fortifications. This example was attended with so good an effect, that for some time adulteration was not heard of; but eight years after, John Jacob Ehrni of Eslingen introduced that practice again with some variation, and not only employed it himself, but induced others to follow it in several other places. Greater severity was at length exercised. Ehrni was beheaded; the possessors of adulterated wine were fined, and the wine was thrown away. After this second example, which was followed in other parts of the country, the art of adulterating wine seems to have been more carefully concealed, or to have been entirely abandoned. But in the present century treatises have been published on the management of wine, in which the art of improving it by litharge has been taught, as a method perfectly free from danger[745].
For detecting metal in wine, the arsenical liver of sulphur is commonly employed; a solution of which is called liquor probatorius Wurtembergicus[746]. This appellation, in my opinion, has been given to it because it was first applied for that purpose by a public order in the duchy of Wurtemberg; though the invention is ascribed to one of the duke’s physicians[747]. The use of it however is not attended with certainty, because it precipitates several metals black without distinction, and lead is not the only one that we have reason to suspect in wine.
The operation of fumigating wine with sulphur is performed by kindling rags of linen dipped in melted brimstone, and suffering the vapour to enter a cask filled, or partly filled, with that liquor. I do not know at what period this process was invented; but it is worthy of remark, that we are told by Pliny[748], that in his time some employed sulphur in the preparation of wine. On this subject he quotes Cato; but the passage to which he alludes is not to be found in the works of that author handed down to us; and the method in which it was really used is consequently unknown. Reason and experience show that the vapour of sulphur stops the fermentation so hurtful to wine, and prevents it from spoiling; and many writers on the management of wine allow the free use of it for that purpose[749]. It can certainly do no injury to the health; and it was not necessary for the police in different countries to distribute prescriptions for employing it, to forbid it, or to limit the quantity[750].
Some wine-dealers are accustomed to sprinkle over with bismuth the rags dipped in sulphur used for fumigating wine, and this addition is a German invention[751]. It has been severely forbidden by express laws; and there are undoubtedly sufficient grounds for its being reprobated. At any rate this metallic addition is of no use in any point of view, as the most experienced dealers in wine have long since acknowledged.
In an old Imperial ordinance, milk also is mentioned as an article used in the adulterating of wine. This method was known to and practised by the ancient Grecians[752]. But in the opinion of Von Rohr milk cannot be employed for that purpose[753]. “One can scarcely comprehend,” says he, “how the framers of laws should ever imagine that a wine-dealer would be so simple as to adulterate wine with milk; and those who do so, deserve not to be punished for their folly. As they will find no purchasers to wine adulterated by so strange a mixture, that punishment will be sufficient.” The effects of milk however may be easily comprehended. It causes the wine to throw up a scum, which carries with it every impurity; and this being taken off along with it, the wine must of course be rendered much clearer. However, though this mixture cannot be called an adulteration, it is certain that wine may be refined much better by isinglass, and that method is followed at present.
I shall observe in the last place, that in the year 1472, Stum-wine, as it is called, was prohibited as a bad liquor prejudicial to the health[754]. By this term is understood wine, the fermentation of which has been checked, and which on that account continues sweet; seldom becomes clear; and, even when it clarifies, turns muddy when exposed to the air, because the fermentation, which has been stopped, again commences[755]. Wines of this kind are allowed at present. They are called vina muta or suffocata, and have a great resemblance to a sort of wine made principally at Bordeaux, to which the French give the name of vin en rage.
[In no country of the world has the adulteration and brewing of wines attained to such a pitch of perfection as in this “tight little island.” So impudently and notoriously are these frauds practised, and so boldly are they avowed, that there are books published called ‘Publican’s Guides’ and ‘Licensed Victuallers’ Directors,’ in which the most infamous receipts imaginable are laid down to swindle their customers[756]. One of these recommends port wine to be manufactured, after sulphuring a cask, with twelve gallons of strong port; six of rectified spirit; three of cognac brandy; forty-two of fine rough cider; making sixty-three gallons, which cost about eighteen shillings a dozen. Another receipt is forty-five gallons of cider; six of brandy; eight of port wine; two gallons of sloes stewed in two gallons of water, and the liquor pressed off. If the colour is not good, tincture of red sanders or cudbear is directed to be added. This may be bottled in a few days, and a tea-spoonful of powder of catechu being added to each, a fine crusted appearance on the bottles will quickly follow. The ends of the corks being soaked in a strong decoction of brazil-wood and a little alum, will complete this interesting process, and give them the appearance of age. Oak-bark, elder, brazil-wood, privet, beet, turnsole, are all used in making fictitious port wine.
The wines of Madeira are in like manner adulterated or wholly manufactured in England, which from these devices may justly claim the title of a universal wine country, where every species is made if it be not grown. The basis of the adulteration of madeira is vidonia, mingled with a little port, mountain, and cape, sugar-candy and bitter-almonds, and the colour made lighter or deepened to the proper shade, as the case may require. Even vidonia itself is adulterated with cider, rum, and carbonate of soda to correct acidity. Bucellas, cape, in short every species of wine that it is worth while to imitate, is adulterated or manufactured in this country with cheaper substances. Common Sicilian wine has been metamorphosed so as to pass for tokay and lachryma christi; even cape wine itself has been imitated by liquids, if possible inferior to the genuine article.