
Were Early Modern People Perpetually Drunk? (2016) - pepys
https://recipes.hypotheses.org/8385
======
Balgair
They were most certainly tossed off their butts in the antebellum US at least:
"Drink was everywhere in early America. “Liquor at that time,” recalled the
Massachusetts carpenter Elbridge Boyden, “was used as commonly as the food we
ate.” Americans drank in enormous quantities. Their yearly consumption at the
time of the Revolution has been estimated at the equivalent of three-and-a-
half gallons of pure, two-hundred proof alcohol for each person. After 1790
American men began to drink even more. By the late 1820s imbibing had risen to
an all-time high of almost four gallons per capita."[0]

That 1820s number, if you do the math, was ~1.4 shots of Everclear or 3.5
shots of modern 80 proof whiskey _per day_ for the average citizen. Wikipedia
[1] has some more info on the boozing of people in those antebellum days.
Suffice to say, it was a _lot_ of booze. You can debate the strengths of these
particular spirits and beers and people's drinking habits, but form what
written evidence we have, the US was a nation populated by either a lot of
very tipsy people, or a lot of sober people and some _very_ drunk people.

[0] [http://www.teachushistory.org/second-great-awakening-age-
ref...](http://www.teachushistory.org/second-great-awakening-age-
reform/articles/historical-note-temperance-reform-early-19th-century) [1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuisine_of_Antebellum_America#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuisine_of_Antebellum_America#Alcohol_in_the_antebellum_United_States)

~~~
Pxtl
I have to wonder how it impacted human evolution. I mean, evolutionary
psychology (for what little good the field is) usually dwells on "savannah
ancestors" and whatnot, but centuries of being perpetually drunk is going to
have an impact too.

Not just in terms of tolerance, but in terms of mental conditions. If the
ground-state of the human mind is tipsy, then is sobriety functionally an
abnormal state we're maladapted for?

~~~
flukus
I think any alcohol dependence would be much more recent than that, I doubt
asian glow
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_flush_reaction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_flush_reaction))
would be a thing of we were getting drunk on the Savannah.

~~~
hmsln
Actually, some monkeys develop alcohol dependence in the wild (they get their
alcohol from ripe fermenting fruits).

Source:
[http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/chimpanzees-...](http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/chimpanzees-
found-routinely-drinking-alcohol-in-wild-10309101.html)

Here's also an extract from a BBC Nature documentary:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSm7BcQHWXk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSm7BcQHWXk)

Apparently, the monkeys are divided among heavy drinkers, occasional drinkers
or teetootalers in proportions that are roughly equal to those among human
beings.

------
mannykannot
I was a bit taken aback by this statement: "[Dr.] James [Sumner], a historian
of science and technology... argues that ‘alcohol by volume’ was rarely used
as a measure of strength for beers and wines until the work of nineteenth-
century French chemists such as Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac, and that it’s
therefore ahistorical to apply it to earlier cultures and beverages." To me,
this is like saying that because trilobites did not make measurements of ocean
pH, it would be wrong for us to estimate the acidity of Cambrian oceans. Is
there more to this than just an absurdly dogmatic backlash against Whig
historiography?

~~~
benbreen
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
The 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.

------
sgt101
I made cyder at home a couple of years ago (about 8 gallons).

I had 2 pints at one sitting, I have no memory of the evening past about 10pm
and when I woke up my first thought was that I had had a stroke.

The rest of the stuff is still sitting in the shed.

~~~
lightedman
You might need to distill off the methanol that might be present, if you're
blacking out. Had a similar problem with some homebrew wine where a glass
tossed me to blacking out (yet I can toss back a half pint of vodka without
too much issue.) Turned out there was a good amount of methanol in there.

~~~
mattkrause
How sure are you about this?

From what I've read, it is very hard to generate methanol via fermentation
alone[0] and home-brew usually has 2-3 ppm, versus a LD_{50} in the tens of
thousands of ppm. Obviously, there might be problems well before the LD_{50},
but that's a lot of wiggle room (and methanol would be out-competed by the
ethanol which is presumably also in the booze).

[0] Concentrating the wine via freezing (as in some ice wines or applejack)
might be an exception to this, but I'm not sure.

~~~
lightedman
Very sure as I was using naturally-present yeast instead of any brewer's yeast
or bread yeast. Methanol content is something to look out for when you use
natural yeasts.

Source: 15 years brewing/distilling. Just got lazy/too self-assured one day.

~~~
mattkrause
Hmmm....

It _does_ look pectin can be degraded into methanol by some microbes. I'm
surprised there was enough feedstock to generate a problematic amount of
methanol, but I'm glad you're ok.

------
mayneack
Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast has an episode on how drugs and alcohol
affected some major historical events:
[http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-
history-20-blitz-h...](http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-
history-20-blitz-history-under-the-influence/)

------
Neliquat
As a home brewer, any of these styles, even 10% or higher is easily
accomplished by any seasoned brewmaster. And for the quantity of beer brewed,
and number of breweries, there must have been many. I must say that I cannot
agree with the authors conclusion surrounding strong beer, as I have one in my
fridge, made with barley and rye in the old way at 10.7 as determened by
hydrometer. It kicks like a mule but is very drinkable.

~~~
mrob
10% is easy with modern equipment and yeast, but remember that pure yeast
strains didn't exist until Emil Hansen isolated one at the Carlsberg
Laboratory in 1883 [1]. In Early Modern times people used whatever yeast
happened to grow locally, saved between batches as "barm" (flocculated yeast).
Selection pressure with this propagation technique is primarily for
flocculation ability, and it produces strains much more flocculant than wild
strains. These strains have lower attenuation because they drop out of
suspension before all the sugar is fermented. Try reaching 10% ABV with a
traditional English strain like Fermentis Safale S-04 - it's pretty much
impossible.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Christian_Hansen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Christian_Hansen)

~~~
colin_mccabe
Despite what Fermentis claims, I don't think S-04 is that "traditional." It's
a beast of a yeast and it will keep going and going. 10% is pushing the upper
end of its range, but more because of the limited alcohol tolerance of the
yeast than because of anything else.

It makes sense if you consider where it came from-- it was supposedly used in
the tower fermenters of the old Whitbread brewery. Where the most important
thing was a cockaroach-like ability to survive and keep fermenting no matter
what, as new wort was fed into one end of the system and fermented beer came
out the other end.

I don't like s-04 because it throws lactic acid, which tastes like someone
squeezed a lemon into the beer. Not what I want in an English ale.

If you want traditional, go with something like Danstar Winsor. But be warned,
the yeast can't ferment maltotriose, and it struggles with gravities above
1.040.

As to what early moderns did-- well, they could have just put sugar in the
wort if they wanted to push up the ABV. I guess that wouldn't apply back in
the middle ages though (not sure what you are considering early modern).

------
espeed
Are modern-day people perpetually drunk on mass-media opiates from consuming
up to a gallon of behaviorally-engineered dopamine shots each day?

~~~
wtbob
> Are modern-day people perpetually drunk on mass-media opiates from consuming
> up to a gallon of behaviorally-engineered dopamine shots each day?

Yes?

------
schnevets
I have always noticed contradictions within the history of booze. I can't
understand how anyone who has ever tried well-water can believe that
misconception about choosing beer over water. Also, an old U.S. History
textbook in high school suggesting to us that the Temperance Movement was a
reaction to people suddenly discovering strong alcohol. This article confirmed
my suspicions on both of those events.

~~~
SamBam
> I can't understand how anyone who has ever tried well-water can believe that
> misconception about choosing beer over water.

But for urban folk in the middle of London, or New York, was the water they
were consuming as fresh as what you're imagining when you think of "well
water?"

Even if it was drawn from nearby wells, and not from dirty cisterns, was their
sewage system good enough to keep it from getting contaminated?

I don't know so much about water cleanliness, and the article suggests it may
not have been _that_ dirty, but I wouldn't assume that it was all as clean as
a perfect little rural well.

------
zxcvvcxz
Very interesting read. Assuming I descended from these people, I wonder if I
could build up such a tolerance, because it sure doesn't seem that way on the
rare occassions I do drink.

Does anyone have links to a similar history of coffee? When and how it
originated, effects it had on the people, etc.

~~~
clock_tower
Fernand Braudel has some pretty interesting material about coffee in passing,
in _The Structures of Everyday Life_. One thing he discusses is how alcohol,
coffee, and tobacco all substituted for each other to an extent: where coffee
consumption spread in France, for example, wine consumption fell.

~~~
pavel_lishin
If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that all three were primarily social
activities - you'd go and meet your friends for a drink at the bar, or some
coffee at the coffeeshop, or to smoke cigars at a lounge. If your friends are
all drinking coffee, you're likely going to start seeking a caffeine buzz
rather than an alcohol one.

~~~
clock_tower
That sounds about right. To judge by _The Structures of Everyday Life_ (my
source for talking about all this), even "drinking to get drunk" was something
done socially. Taverns were the ruin of the peasantry when they spread into
the French countryside; there were enormous taverns just outside the walls of
Paris, where the whole city gathered to drink too much wine and dodge the
city's heavy taxes on it; and English society got blitzed on gin in the 18th
century (a drinking epidemic even by early-modern standards), but specifically
on gin sold by the glass and drunk on the spot, in the company of other
patrons.

------
barking
I would really love to know the prevalence of liver disease then vs now.
Because now it is apparently at a record high or so we are being told all the
time.

~~~
martinald
Problem is life expectancy was so low then it would be hard to do a proper
comparison, and most cases of liver failure happen in later life.

------
NamTaf
I absolutely love that they're trying to reach a broader public engagement of
their historical academic work through innovative events such as the pub
nights. I mean it's pretty easy for this when your research is into brewing
habits of early modern people but it marks a significant depature from the
lofty circles of academia and helps to really engage Joe Public with
historical research and academic discovery in an easily accessable way.

I think that's an absolutely fantastic goal to shoot for. Scientific (and in a
broader sense, academic in general) outreach is really important and
beneficial for society as a whole, so I'm only too happy to read about how
some people are trying to do that!

------
derefr
> beer was more important as a source of energy (via calories both from grain
> and alcohol)

> they were likely to have been pushing for ‘sweetness and body’ rather than
> maximum alcoholic strength

So, basically, people drank beer like they drink soda-pop today, and wanted
the same things out of it (sweet, fizzy, not necessarily alcoholic, goes well
with food.)

Anyone know what those people of the Early Modern era had to say about coffee?
Were people who drank coffee, but not beer, considered teetotalers?

~~~
rbanffy
IIRC, coffee was introduced to Europe at about the end of the Dark Ages. I
don't think it's a coincidence.

------
panglott
"James S. goes on to point out that while you can achieve the percentages
suggested by Craig using modern barley, malting techniques, yeast, and
equipment, such ‘show-stopping’ figures were unlikely to have been achieved by
even the commercial producers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries."

This is a key point. Malting is tricky: The barley seed must be germinated,
since the enzyme that converts starch to fermentable sugars is produced by the
sprouting seed. Then the germinated seed must be sterilized in a way that
prevents too much of the starch from being converted but also does little
damage to the grain. This can be done with drying, toasting, and smoking, but
it requires a lot of process control to get a uniformly "pale" malt rather
than a darker caramel or chocolate malt where some of the starches and sugars
have been caramelized.

The development and popularization of pilseners and other light, clear beers
in the 19th century was driven by techical advances in malting. 18th century
malts were certainly less advanced, more uneven in quality, with a higher
proportion of caramelized and toasted sugars and consequently a lot of body
and a lower alcohol content.

------
LoonyBalloony
Reminded me of the theory that early humans ate tons of psychedelic fungus and
that is what helped us create the neural pathways towards sentience. (if you
think we are sentient now that is)

Between that, and the cannabis receptors in our brains, perhaps we're not
supposed to be sober.

Maybe everything is going to shit in the world because we as a species are
going through a collective withdrawal from the substances that made us in the
first place.

Edit: I think this is the documentary that I saw that referenced weaker beer.
[http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/watch-
video/#id=2082...](http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/watch-
video/#id=2082675582)

------
aidenn0
In my early 20s I could drink 5% ABV beer all day long and never get too drunk
to pass a field-sobriety test.

------
JonRB
This link is just timing out for me. HN hug of death?

~~~
Rmilb
Fullhn.com has it saved.

------
Touche
How did they avoid massive weight gain?

~~~
ctdonath
Exercise. People had to physically work a whole lot harder than we do. Local
travel was mostly by foot. Heating the house meant hauling & shoveling coal or
wood. Food & clothing was far more labor intensive. Entertainment was far more
likely physical; even watching a show meant traveling to the theater.

Contrast today, where the thermostat keeps temperatures comfortable
automatically, car/bus/taxi takes most people everywhere, prepared food is
cheap (heat via microwave), work for the HN crowd is sitting/reading/typing,
and entertainment is staring at a glowing wall.

------
aardvark291
TLDR:

* Because beer was consumed as a source of energy rather than as an alternative to water, and high alcohol content was favored, it seems like the answer is "Yes."

* However, it's unclear whether early brewers could make drinkable beer at high ABV, throwing this conclusion into doubt.

~~~
pkulak
* But even if they couldn't hit the high ABV numbers, they were still drinking at least 3% beer pretty much all day long.

From what I've read, this behavior pretty much continued straight through
until prohibition in the States. Usually a cider before about lunch, then beer
and spirits.

~~~
village-idiot
From what I understand prohibition was the result of revolutionary drinking
habits meeting up with increasing supplies of industrialized and cheap high
alcohol beer and spirits.

~~~
ctdonath
As urban populations grew, rural grain farmers soon found that transporting
spirits was a far more profitable per-volume process than raw dry grains.

BTW: that eventually led to institutionalizing the Southern US's illegal
"moonshine culture", which as the automobile became commonplace started using
cars for smuggling spirits, which then led to car racing (smugglers had
powerful vehicles and talented drivers) which eventually manifested as NASCAR.

------
aaron695
> Were early modern people perpetually drunk?

It's an idiotic premise. Turn up to work drunk and see how well you do.

Who the hell would want to do a labourer's job drunk.

Who would hire someone drunk?

Imagine the whole workforce drunk?

Even tipsy, seems worse, the afternoon sucks after lunch drinks.

I think if you look at current 3rd world countries they are not far off
culturally to 'Early Modern People'

There's a huge crutch on alcohol, it kills a lot of people.

But most people are not drunk (or tipsy) most of the time.

~~~
douche
You can sweat out a lot of beer doing brute-force manual labor. Especially if
it's relatively low-test beer - it's pretty hard to drink it fast enough to
get tipsy.

I mean, the daily ration of beer in the Royal Navy, when they were in English
waters and not on hard stuff, was _one gallon_ per man per day. And they were
scampering around in the mastheads...

~~~
dpark
> _one gallon per man per day_

No it wasn't. There was never a time that a whole gallon per day was a normal
rum ration. It was a gallon of _beer_ , later a _half pint_ of rum. A half
pint of strong rum is still a lot to consume every day, but it's nowhere near
a gallon.

Over time it was reduced until it turned into basically a shot, and then even
that was stopped.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rum_ration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rum_ration)

~~~
hueving
You just said the same thing as your parent comment (one gallon of beer per
day). Please read carefully before disagreeing.

~~~
dpark
I read that a half dozen times before replying. Not sure how I misread that.
Oops

Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

