opinion / à la volée
Missing link to the fi rst fi zz? Tom Stevenson
recorded sparkling wine—not what we might infer about what happened before. But even dated, documented evidence requires further definition, not least to determine whether it concerns an effervescence that was intentional. The very first recorded sparkling wine was inevitably of the unintentional ilk, and the most often quoted reference for that particular number one is the bible. But it’s not quite as simple as that. In the King James Bible, published in 1611, we find in Matthew 9:17, Mark 2:22, and Luke 5:37 a warning that “no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles […] new wine must be put into new bottles.” Obviously, Jesus was not a tech-nerd hellbent on alerting his disciples to the insufficient compressive strength of contemporary glass vessels. He was merely telling a parable to explain why his new teachings were incompatible with the old religious traditions and that his teachings required a new, more adaptable mindset.
W
The bottles he mentions were not glass bottles, as we discover in the much earlier Codex Sinaiticus (c.325–360 CE), which is the oldest surviving source of the Gospels. Written in Koine Greek, the word used is (askous), which translates as “wineskins” or “leather bags.” They would swell and burst when filled with a wine that was either still fermenting or prone to refermentation, and this suggests that Jesus was well aware of the phenomenon. It’s not, however, proof beyond a date sometime in the mid-4th century. But we can go back another 200 years to Galen, the most prolific ancient Greek philosopher, physician, and researcher, who wrote (c.169–180 CE) that “Exhalations burst even wineskins and jars, when they are filled up with fermenting must […] jars are burst by the
72 | THE WORLD OF FINE WINE | ISSUE 87 | 2025
hen it comes to the first sparkling wine, we can be certain only of the first
force of expansion through the must as a result of a build-up of gaseous spirits.” This is an indication of unintentional sparkling wine and the “gaseous” cause is quite a remarkable scientific observation for the age.
Deliberately fi zzy early Moving on to what is currently the earliest documented evidence of intentional sparkling wine—which comes not from Christopher Merret in 1662 but Francesco Scacchi in 1622. On page 226 of De Salubri Potu Dissertatio, Scacchi wrote that “those who make it their business to produce biting wines are anxious to inhibit the fermentation of their wines [… This] is a practice that is often followed, particularly in France [… In] order to produce the most biting wines the French hold back the fermentation, once the jars have been filled, in such a way that they can be neither stirred nor breathe, to the point where it is not surprising that the jars, being tightly closed in this way, at times burst.”
On page 227, Scacchi further explains “that ‘biting’ or (so-called) piquant wine, does not promote good health, because that sting (or pricking) arises from no other source than an excess of gaseous spirit.” He uses the phrase flatuoso spiritu (albeit paraphrasing Galen, whom he quotes at length), literally meaning “windy air” and translated as “gaseous spirit.” Although Galen understood that wine vessels burst due to a build-up of “gaseous spirits,” it was Scacchi who links this (carbon dioxide) to the “exciting” (or titillating) and “biting” tactile sensation on the palate. Scacchi continues, “The
fermentation of the wine is halted by tightly closing the jars before the bubbling phase has been completed, and for this reason it often happens that the thin, watery, and undigested part of the wine cannot be resolved
by the process of bubbling into an exhalation, or, if you prefer, into air, and it is therefore inevitable that when wines are confined in this way they have an enormous abundance of gaseous spirit, since its strong tendency to break out is inhibited [… If] wines of this kind are from time to time drunk from the jars, they can be seen boiling up with great force, and especially so, if the wine is poured into a glass, for then, once the stoppers are removed, those gaseous spirits, which were previously forced to remain quiescent, make a rush, and rapidly travel upwards, so that in that violent movement some foam also bubbles up on the surface of the wine.” Thus, 40 years before Merret,
Francesco Scacchi was the first to document the production of an intentional sparkling wine. He described it as méthode rurale utilizing a rudimentary cuve close system and was also the first to describe how a sparkling wine looks and reacts when poured into a glass. It is proof that somewhere in France winemakers were deliberately producing sparkling wine as early as 1622. Christopher Merret remains the first to describe the use of a liqueur de tirage, something the Champenois did not adopt until the 19th century. And although Merret said this was used to make “all sorts of wine … drink sparkling,” and he did not specifically mention Champagne or bottles, it had been common in London for vintners to bottle wines since the 16th century, and by 1776 the drinking of “sparkling Champaign” had become so fashionable that George Etherege extolled its virtues in the popular stage comedy The Man of Mode. So while I dislike assumptions, given that we have documentary proof that Champagne was bottled and made sparkling, only conspiracy theorists believe that lovers went to “the Mall and the Park” riding on top of a barrel of “sparkling Champaign.”
Illustration by Dan Murrell.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220
