My New Book

My new book, "THOSE FANTASTIC CLASSIC COCKTAILS: History and Recipes" is now available as a paperback on Amazon. It was previously available as a Kindle Ebook and is now available as a paperback. Check it out. Makes a great Christmas gift for the cocktail lovers in your family.

THE MARTINI

This is truly the most iconic of all cocktails, not just classic cocktails. The Martini has a rich and storied history. More has been written about Martini’s than any other cocktail. It has a lore all its own. 

Almost every tavern and restaurant today has a Martini menu with numerous Martini like concoctions. Personally, I do not believe they are truly Martinis. They are just cocktails served in a Martini glass. After all, how could you seriously believe a drink called “Jamaica Me Crazy” is actually a Martini? But I digress. 

As is the history of many of our classic cocktails, the origin of the Martini is clouded in mystery. One of the few facts that can be agreed on is that it started in the 1800’s. There are numerous different stories about the origin of the Martini. H. L. Mencken called the Martini "the only American invention as perfect as the sonnet"

One popular story is that it was invented in San Francisco at the Occidental Hotel by bartender Jerry Thomas. The story goes that a miner on his way to Martinez during the gold rush, asked the bartender to create him something special. Thomas created a concoction that came to be known as the Martinez which some claim to be the precursor to the Martini. However, the people of Martinez, CA, claim the Martini was first created right in Martinez by a bartender named Julio Richelieu in 1870. They claim a miner was tired of drinking whisky so Richelieu created a drink with gin, vermouth, orange bitters and an olive thus giving birth to the Martinez. Even this story isn’t universally agreed upon. Some claim that the miner really wanted Champaign after just making a big strike but the tavern didn’t have it. Therefore, the bartender concocted the Martinez instead. 


Another story has the cocktail being invented at the Hoffman House in New York in the 1880’s. The Hoffman House, once a very popular establishment, was torn down in 2015. They are credited with making Martinis dry. They took out the sweet vermouth and substituted dry vermouth. The classic Martini hasn’t changed much since then.  There are many other stories about the creation of the Martini but these are my favorites and generally most accepted possibilities. 

Luminaries, politicians, writers and athletes, a veritable list of who’s who, were Martini drinkers. The quotes that sprang up around the Martini will fill a book alone. In fact, Noel Coward once said “anyone can write books, but it takes an artist to make a dry Martini.”

Some of the notable Martini drinkers were Ernest Hemingway, President Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Frank Sinatra, Humphrey Bogart, Steve Allen, Jackie Gleason, Johnny Carson, Dr. Seuss, Dean Martin, and the list goes on. In fact, President Roosevelt was an avid Martini drinker. He carried a Martini kit where ever he went. He is alleged to have served one to Joseph Stalin at the Tehran conference, and he liked it. 

I will leave you with a couple famous quotes about the Martini. George Burns once said “I never go jogging; it makes me spill my Martini.” Rodney Dangerfield once said "I drink too much. The last time I gave a urine sample it had an olive in it." Finally, Dorothy Parker said "I like to have a martini, two at the very most --After three I'm under the table, After four, I'm under my host." 
The classic Martini recipe contains gin. Vodka, which is quite popular in Martinis now, wasn’t very popular in the United States at the time. So the following recipes contain gin. 

Classic Dry Martini

 6 Parts Dry Gin (such as Beefeaters)

1 Part Dry Vermouth

Shake with ice and strain into a chilled Martini glass Garnish with an olive or lemon twist. 

Hoffman House Martini

4 oz gin

1/2 oz dry vermouth

4 dashes orange bitters

Method  Stir ingredients together with cracked ice in a mixing glass. Strain into a chilled cocktail glass. Garnish with an olive, and serve.

Update

It's been a while since I posted to this blog. I have been busy blogging to my other blogs and writing a book. The book has now been released on Amazon as a Kindle book and can be found there. It is called: "Those Fantastic Classic Cocktails: Histories and Recipes". I hope you will give it a look.

As a first post in a while, I thought I would post a chapter from the book. I hoped you enjoy it and I look forward to your comments.

EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY & PHILOSOPHERS-RENE DESCARTES (PART 2)

Descartes was not alone in his rejection and dissatisfaction of Scholasticism. Many philosophers at this time had similar thoughts but not everyone approached the problem the same. In the case of Descartes, he looked to his inner self for the answer to his quest for absolute certainty. Descartes believed strongly in mathematical certainty. He always considered it as separate from the other sciences because of its certainty. Mathematical knowledge was absolute and mathematical reasoning was the basis upon which a metaphysical structure, a system of values and a God could be built. Unlike Hobbes, and many other early modern philosophers, Descartes believed that there is an objective, rational order to the world that the mind understands in its intuitions. As such, Descartes was a rationalist as opposed to the Empiricists of the time that included Hobbes. I’ll write more on this in later submissions.  

Descartes began his search for certainty by seeking some metaphysical absolute that is a self evident and indisputable principle on which to build his belief system. Much like in  geometry, you start with one undeniable self evident truth and then look to other theorems that depend on that truth to build upon. This is how Descartes hoped to progress. He decided to proceed by questioning his every belief no matter how widely accepted or likely it might be. He was searching for an undeniable, absolute starting point. This doubt also extended  to God which Descartes had always believed to be all powerful and his creator.

Through this process, Descartes realized that the one thing he was certain of is that he doubted. He reasoned that even if God is an evil deceiver who devotes all his energies to deceiving me, it is impossible to believe that he could deceive me about my own existence. I must exist to be so deceived. As such, I must exist in order to doubt that I exist. This was his undeniable self evident truth on which to build his philosophy. Descartes’ famous phrase: “Cogito, Ergo Sum”, I think, therefore I am. This was the cornerstone of Descartes belief. However, when Descartes stated that he existed, what did he actually mean? Simply, he meant that he existed as something that thinks, nothing more. He did not affirm the existence of a body or anything else other than that he existed as a thinking entity. This was the first of his six meditations.  

After discovering this indubitable truth, Descartes inquires as to what is required in a proposition for it to be true and certain. By examining a proposition that is known to be true and certain, such as the one he just discovered, he hopes to find a general criterion of certainty. He concludes there is nothing in cogito, ergo sum, which is assuring of truth except that he sees very clearly and distinctly what is affirmed. As such, he came to the conclusion that he might assume as a general rule that the things we conceive very clearly and distinctly are all true. By clear Descartes meant that which is present and apparent to an attentive mind  in the same way as we assert that we see objects clearly when, being present to the beholding eye, they operate upon it with sufficient strength. By distinct he meant that which is so precise and different from all other objects that it contains within itself nothing but what is clear. A perception can be clear without it being distinct. However, it cannot be distinct without it being clear.

Now Descartes has established the criterion for discerning truth and certainty. However, how do we ascertain those things which are distinctly perceived? Secondly, a God may have endowed me with such a nature that I may have been deceived even concerning things which seemed to me most manifest. Descartes had no reason to believe that there was such a deceiving God, however; as yet, Descartes had not satisfied himself that there was a God. While he believed any reason for doubting his criterion was slim, it none the less existed. As such, he had to prove the existence of a God who is not a deceiver.  

To be continued.

EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY & PHILOSOPHERS- RENE DESCARTES

Rene Descartes was born in 1596 and died in 1650. He was born in Tours, France and educated at La Fle’che, a Jesuit college, where he studied physics, Scholastic philosophy and mathematics. Descartes is considered, rightfully so, as the father of modern philosophy. Descartes had a strong desire to learn and was clearly a gifted student. Descartes was quoted as saying that “philosophy teaches us to speak with an appearance of truth about all things and causes us to be admired by the less learned…” Descartes life was spent in a quest for certainty.

After leaving school, Descartes joined the army of Prince Maurice of Nassau, which seems quite odd, and did not take any pay. During this time he studied mathematics and wrote several papers including a treatise on music. He left the service in 1619. Also in 1619, Descartes had three consecutive mystical dreams much like Augustine before him. However these dreams led not to salvation of his soul, but to the discovery of a new scientific method.

Descartes was a devout Catholic and died in the faith. In fact his faith had an impact on his philosophy. Descartes avoided theological discussions and contented himself with problems which he believed could be solved by reason alone.

In 1637 Descartes published his “Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason and Seeking for Truth in the Sciences,” (Discourse on the Method). This method worked out over several years was formulated in 21 “Rules for the Direction of the Mind”. The Rules were written earlier but published posthumously. In 1641 Descartes published his “Meditations on First Philosophy” which was accompanied by six sets of objections submitted by various theologians and philosophers and by Descartes answers to these objections. “Principles of Philosophy” was published in 1644 and in 1649 and treatise “The Passions of the Soul” was published.

The Cartesian method reflects Descartes passion for certainty. His quest was for a universal and infallible method of reasoning. This method is formulated in his 21 rules. Rule III is one of the most important of the rules. It states that in the subjects that we investigate, our inquiries should not be directed to what others have thought nor to our own preconceptions, but only to what we can clearly know and with certainty deduce. Descartes believed that there are only two mental operations by which we are able to arrive at the knowledge of things. The two operations are through intuition and deduction.

By intuition Descartes did not mean the results from our senses, nor constructions of the imagination, but the conception which an unclouded and attentive mind gives us so distinctly that we are free from doubt about which we understand. Intuition springs from light of reason alone. By deduction, Descartes meant that we understand all necessary inference from other facts that are known with certainty. Descartes believed that many things are known with certainty but are not self evident, but are deduced from true and known principles by the continuous and uninterrupted action of a mind that has a clear vision of each step in the deductive process.

Rule IV is for the need of a method for finding out the truth. By a method Descartes meant a certain and simple rule such that if a man observe them accurately, he shall never assume what is false as true. Rule V states that method consists entirely in the order and disposition of the objects towards which our mental vision must be directed if we are to find any truth. We shall comply with it exactly if we reduce involved and obscure propositions step by step to those that are simpler, and then starting with the intuitive apprehension of all those that are absolutely simple, attempt to ascend to the knowledge of all others by precisely similar steps.

Rule VI states that in order to separate out what is simple from what is complex, and to arrange these matters methodically, we ought , in the case of every series in which we have  deduced certain facts the one from the other, to notice which fact is simpler. This rule is certainly the secret to the method. It states that all facts can be arranged in a certain series in that certain truths can be known from others. Things should not be regarded as isolated realities, but should be compared with one another in order to discover the dependence in knowledge of one upon the other, and as such all things can be said to be absolute or relative. Absolute contains within itself the pure and simple essence of what we are in quest. The relative is that which, while participating in the same nature enables us to relate it to the absolute and to deduce it from that by a chain of operations. There are few pure and simple essences. They should be carefully noticed for they are just those facts which we have called the simplest in any series. All others can only be perceived as deductions from these.

Rule VIII states that if in matters to be examined we come to a step in the series of which our understanding is not sufficiently able to have a intuitive cognition, we should stop and go no further. We should spare ourselves superfluous labor.

As you can tell from these few rules, Descartes had a passion for certainty. That was not unusual in this age were centuries of authority was being rejected. Descartes believed knowledge was revealed truth. Descartes believed that reason was equal in all men and that reason was adequate to the power of forming good judgment and the ability to distinguish the true from the false. This was different from the Greeks who believed reason was adequate but not distributed equally in all men. In the Middle Ages, little or no account was taken of reason but they assumed all men were morally equal before God.

Descartes part two to follow.