Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T09:55:43.554Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

John Richardson, saccharometry and the pounds-per-barrel extract: the construction of a quantity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 October 2001

JAMES SUMNER
Affiliation:
Division of the History and Philosophy of Science, School of Philosophy, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.

Abstract

This paper uses the work of John Richardson, an eighteenth-century brewing theorist, to explore the view that physical quantities, though they appear ‘natural’ or ‘given’, are actually contingent entities constructed to serve particular aims. It focuses on the pounds-per-barrel extract, a brewery-specific quantity which, in a reversal of the familiar position, seems self-evidently constructed to the general reader yet came to be accepted as ‘natural’ among its users. Central to Richardson's work in achieving this acceptance was an instrument, the saccharometer, which, by providing measurements of the quantity, legitimated it. Richardson presented both instrument and quantity as tailored to serving the particular needs of his fellow brewers, at the same time emphasizing their separateness from parallel work in distillery assessment, which had made Richardson's innovation possible but now threatened his projected consensus. Richardson's overall project encompassed the direct proportionation of material costs, retail prices and Excise duties to extract values as defined by the saccharometer, which he sought to monopolize. The scheme was not wholly successful, yet Richardson's quantity remained in brewery use into modern times. The end result, I contend, shows how a quantity, by becoming naturalized, may survive the loss of its initial theoretical underpinning.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2001 British Society for the History of Science

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This paper is based on an essay which was awarded the Society's Singer Prize for 2000.