Origin of the Term Bourbon
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 4:24 am
Via Google Books, here is a link to What We Eat, an early investigation into food and drink composition:
http://books.google.com/books?id=RHxIo2 ... #PPA148,M1
The author is Thomas Hoskins, and he states that he is a long-time resident of Kentucky with knowledge of its whiskey-making traditions. This must be (1861) one of the very early references to bourbon which views the subject from the standpoint of its development and etymology. Hoskins states (see pp. 147-148) that the term derives from Bourbon County and he refers at one point to "Old Bourbon", seemingly to indicate, not that bourbon is typically aged, but that it is from an area that used to produce bourbon but no longer does because agriculture changed in the area. Thus, "Old Bourbon" would be the style of whiskey that used to be made in Bourbon County. Hoskins does not state that "Old Bourbon" was a larger area than it later became through county subdivision. However, it is not unreasonable to read or graft that onto what he states since that contraction is known from other sources and fits in general with what he is saying. The theory that the name Old Bourbon to describe a particular type of Kentucky whiskey referred to a larger part of Kentucky than Bourbon County occupies today (or in 1861), has been argued elsewhere, see e.g., Chuck Cowdery's bourbon book and other writings, and Hoskins' words seem good support.
In any case, his comments are very interesting about bourbon's origin. He focuses here, not on mashing techniques, but on distillation and malting. He suggests that Old Bourbon was made in small copper stills, which must have been pot stills in most cases, and that the grain used was "malted", which must have meant all-malted grains were used because he contrasts whiskey made in "immense iron stills" from unmalted grains. Even in large stills, some malted grains would have to have been used, so one can infer that his "copper whiskey" from small artisan stills was all-malted. Indeed I have read about moonshiner recipes which used all-malted corn although malting corn is not the easiest operation.
I think it can be seen that the original bourbon was different than what we know today. It was made in a copper alembic on a farm or on that scale. It was made in one of a number of sour mash methods, but the earliest may have been a simple procedure of using yeast from the previous ferment without keeping it in a jug under controlled conditions, and/or by using slop in the mash and letting air-borne yeast ferment it a la lambic beer in Belgium today.
None of these early references (that we have discussed on the board in the last few days) talk about charred barrel aging, perhaps they simply assumed the process. There is no question that Hoskins' Old Bourbon was aged: he refers e.g., to a purchase of bourbon from a small producer that is "seven years old". So that part of bourbon-making hasn't changed except that old-growth trees would have been used to fashion the barrels which today be unlikely I would think.
Distiller Samuel M'Harry writing in 1809, many years before Hoskins, never speaks of using all-malted grains, but rather of mixing barley malt with unmalted corn and rye (in various combinations). Thus, early on commercial distilling probably industrialised to the point of omitting use of all-malted grains. In Scotland, the best whiskey always was all-malt-based, however, and perhaps this was true in Ireland too although later the Irish style was to mix barley malt with unmalted grains. So perhaps we can infer that the choicest early bourbon was made from all-malted grains as Hoskins suggests, and later too in the U.S. the practice developed to use mostly unmalted grains, i.e., as commercial-scale distilling rose. (The practice of using malted rye did survive in various guises though as we know).
Thomas Hoskins, as early as 1861, essentially was exhibiting an antiquarian interest in the subject of bourbon whiskey, which is quite extraordinary I think.
Gary
http://books.google.com/books?id=RHxIo2 ... #PPA148,M1
The author is Thomas Hoskins, and he states that he is a long-time resident of Kentucky with knowledge of its whiskey-making traditions. This must be (1861) one of the very early references to bourbon which views the subject from the standpoint of its development and etymology. Hoskins states (see pp. 147-148) that the term derives from Bourbon County and he refers at one point to "Old Bourbon", seemingly to indicate, not that bourbon is typically aged, but that it is from an area that used to produce bourbon but no longer does because agriculture changed in the area. Thus, "Old Bourbon" would be the style of whiskey that used to be made in Bourbon County. Hoskins does not state that "Old Bourbon" was a larger area than it later became through county subdivision. However, it is not unreasonable to read or graft that onto what he states since that contraction is known from other sources and fits in general with what he is saying. The theory that the name Old Bourbon to describe a particular type of Kentucky whiskey referred to a larger part of Kentucky than Bourbon County occupies today (or in 1861), has been argued elsewhere, see e.g., Chuck Cowdery's bourbon book and other writings, and Hoskins' words seem good support.
In any case, his comments are very interesting about bourbon's origin. He focuses here, not on mashing techniques, but on distillation and malting. He suggests that Old Bourbon was made in small copper stills, which must have been pot stills in most cases, and that the grain used was "malted", which must have meant all-malted grains were used because he contrasts whiskey made in "immense iron stills" from unmalted grains. Even in large stills, some malted grains would have to have been used, so one can infer that his "copper whiskey" from small artisan stills was all-malted. Indeed I have read about moonshiner recipes which used all-malted corn although malting corn is not the easiest operation.
I think it can be seen that the original bourbon was different than what we know today. It was made in a copper alembic on a farm or on that scale. It was made in one of a number of sour mash methods, but the earliest may have been a simple procedure of using yeast from the previous ferment without keeping it in a jug under controlled conditions, and/or by using slop in the mash and letting air-borne yeast ferment it a la lambic beer in Belgium today.
None of these early references (that we have discussed on the board in the last few days) talk about charred barrel aging, perhaps they simply assumed the process. There is no question that Hoskins' Old Bourbon was aged: he refers e.g., to a purchase of bourbon from a small producer that is "seven years old". So that part of bourbon-making hasn't changed except that old-growth trees would have been used to fashion the barrels which today be unlikely I would think.
Distiller Samuel M'Harry writing in 1809, many years before Hoskins, never speaks of using all-malted grains, but rather of mixing barley malt with unmalted corn and rye (in various combinations). Thus, early on commercial distilling probably industrialised to the point of omitting use of all-malted grains. In Scotland, the best whiskey always was all-malt-based, however, and perhaps this was true in Ireland too although later the Irish style was to mix barley malt with unmalted grains. So perhaps we can infer that the choicest early bourbon was made from all-malted grains as Hoskins suggests, and later too in the U.S. the practice developed to use mostly unmalted grains, i.e., as commercial-scale distilling rose. (The practice of using malted rye did survive in various guises though as we know).
Thomas Hoskins, as early as 1861, essentially was exhibiting an antiquarian interest in the subject of bourbon whiskey, which is quite extraordinary I think.
Gary