The Chemistry of Wine. 



63 



Such /a c/s would do more to vindicate 

 the Salem, if favorable, than all asser- 

 tions of its productiveness and supe- 

 rior qualit}". That would be '^ standing 

 upon its merits." Our columns are 

 open to him for such statements. 



Friend Babcock a Imits that Dr. 

 Grant may have been deceived. This is 

 precisely what we claim for himself. 

 We do not suppose that he would 

 willingly or knowingly deceive the 

 public, but may he not deceive him- 

 self, and by giving his own belief, de- 

 ceive othei's ? lie certainly deceives 



himself, if he thinks because the 

 Salem succeeds there with him, it fol- 

 lows that it should succeed every- 

 where. 



We heartily concur with him when 

 he wishes that we " shall buiy all 

 prejudices and animosities," and can 

 assure him that w^e are not " acting 

 from prejudice or animosity," but are 

 governed by a deep sense of duty wo 

 owe our readers to further the very 

 objects of which he speaks, the ad- 

 vancement of grape culture in this 

 countr3^ — Editor.] 



THE CHEMISTEY OF WINE. 



BY CHAS. 11. FRINGS. 



In the foregoing articles we have 

 principally considered the theory and 

 fundamental principles of wine mak- 

 ing, we can now consider their prac- 

 tical use. 



In doing this we come to the old 

 mooted question, " Is wine a produc- 

 tion of nature, or of art ?" 



In consideration of this question, 

 we have only to remark as follows : 



A product of nature we can only 

 call that which nature herself produces 

 loithout the assistance of human art. 

 The wild grape vine, growing un- 

 checked on our forest trees, is a pro- 

 duct of nature, but with the product 

 of the cultivated vine, which is kept 

 in artificial bounds by man, art has as 

 much to do as nature. We may safel}' 

 say that every plant, which is trained 

 and manured artificially ceases to be 

 a product of nature, as by manuring 

 we feed it with substances which na- 

 ture denies. Herein lavs the most 



material difference between man and 

 animal, that the first is enabled by his 

 reasoning powers, which an all-wise 

 Creator has given him, to change the 

 gifts of nature and suit them to his 

 wants and taste. Are not the victuals 

 which we dail}' consume, and which 

 human art cooks, roasts and boils, and 

 to which we add manifold spices, to 

 make them palatable, also products of 

 nature in their crude condition, and 

 only made edible by our artificial treat- 

 ment ? And are not all our most 

 common drinks, with the sole excep- 

 tion of water, products of nature, 

 which have been changed b}^ artificial 

 processes in manifold ways ? Does 

 even the wine which the enemies of a 

 rational improvement of the must laud 

 to us as the pure product of nature, 

 form an exception to this rule? Is 

 it not pressed and fermented artificial- 

 ly, and do they hesitate to use sul- 

 phuric acid, to preserve it sweet, or 



