“_Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his color
in the cup, when it moveth itself aright._”
Now, the Cincinnati Horticultural Society appointed a committee to do
just what Solomon says must not be done. Their report is a very artful
document, so drawn up that the unwary would suppose that this was a
mere business affair—passing off quite respectably. But we were not to
be deceived; we instantly saw through it; and pencil in hand, we noted
all places in the report proper to shock a true Washingtonian heart.
Although the array of forty kinds of wine save one, did not intimidate
these hitherto respectable gentlemen, it inspired them with prudence;
and a German Committee called in, to ferret out any foreign wines
which might have been smuggled in to the confusion of the judges.
The committee only darkly intimate their _modus operandi_; if they had
given us a journal of their doings, made out on the spot, by some
trusty clerk, what a bacchanal mystery would have been disclosed! but
they had discretion enough left to defer this until they were sober
again.
But Washingtonianism is abroad, and can detect all the mysteries of
ebriety, however graced with authority from a Horticultural Society.
We can imagine the impatience with which the bottles were
preliminarily eyed—the entire moderation with which each sipped a few
first specimens; we can see them gradually warming with their
subject—through tasting with alacrity—nodding at each other, squinting
the ruddy glass, smacking their too often dewy lips, or wagging their
heads with more than ordinary satisfaction as a beaker of great merit
made the _facilis descensus averni_. Laughter interrupts sober
attention to business; in vain the chairman thumps the table for
order; he gets more jokes than attention. Many a sly story is told;
some of them have visited wine countries and now begin long yarns
thereof; the clamor of laughing, and anecdote, and criticism—the
necessity, in consequence, of re-tasting, and tasting again to arrive
at a conclusion, brought them, we doubt not, to a most lamentable
conclusion, although the report only obscurely hints of it, as we
shall see. Had any of them married into the Caudle connection we might
have had a graphic account of their several arrivals at their homes—at
what time, by whose help, in what condition, etc.
The tabular report given in has evidently been studiously framed. We
suspect that if the opinions had been set down just in the order of
their occurrence, they would have afforded an index of the condition
of the committee as well as of the wine. But though they have mixed
them up, they cannot elude our vigilance—we can pick out the
chronological order. At first such opinions as these were given:
“Tolerably good,” “Inferior,” “Poor, fermented on skins.” They were
critical yet; but warming a little they express more generous
sentiments; “Good,” “Very good Cape,” “Very good, resembling old
Madeira.” The next step shows the genial advance—some were getting
disputatious. “Good, considered by some better than No. 8, by others
not so good,”—they evidently had a row about it. They next advanced
into the patriotic mood as is seen in the judgment of our foreign
wines, “Good dry wine, but supposed to be foreign,” “Inferior, a
foreign wine,” “Not American wine.” Here the gradations of contempt
are very plain. We have next, melancholy evidence of their progress in
the necessity of a stronger body to their wines,—“Not liked, supposed
to have been injured in the bottle.” Why not say it right out, that it
was a weak, thin wine? Here we have it, “_Good strong_ wine.” The last
record made is “Good new, not in a state for judgment.” Does this
refer to the wine or to the committee? To the latter we suppose; and
at this point, probably perceiving their condition, they laid aside
their official character and made it a private, personal, and somewhat
miscellaneous affair. We see now the meaning of a sentence which
follows the tabular exhibit: “The judgments pronounced and recorded in
the foregoing table, were as nearly unanimous as can ever be expected
among so many judges.”
The committee state in respect to western wines: “That the pure juice
of the grape when judiciously managed will furnish the finest kind of
wine, without any addition or mixture whatever; that no saccharine
addition is necessary to give it sufficient body to keep for any
length of time in this climate.”
We submit that the _keeping_ properties of wine are not altogether
intrinsic; but depend much upon the persons having access to them, or,
as we were taught in school, “on time, place, and person.” In _our_
cellar American wines would doubtless have great longevity. We wish to
call the attention of Mr. Gough to the closing sentence of the report:
“A taste for the wines of this region appears to be well established,
since all that can be produced finds a ready market at good prices;
and the committee are of opinion, that the period is not distant when
the wines of the Ohio will enjoy a celebrity equal to those of the
Rhine.”
Here’s work on hand for him. In conclusion, we respectfully suggest
that the same committee be continued from year to year, as there is no
use in spoiling a fresh set every year. If the specimens multiply,
perhaps more help will be required—at any rate a by-law should be
passed, so that there shall be one committee-man to at least every ten
bottles.