Enosophy

MAURIZIO ROSSO

BOOKS

CONTACT

HOME

What is Enosophy?

Enosophy is a new theory, being developed by Maurizio Rosso, with the intention of stimulating a greater comprehension of wine, from a cultural and philosophical point of view, at the start of the new millennium.

Translated literally, enosophy is taken to mean 'knowledge of wine': from the ancient Greek 'oinos' (wine) plus 'sophia' (knowledge, wisdom). It will be used to indicate the study of the relationship between people and wine and must be distinguished from both the science of enology and the passion of the enophile.

Enology is the science through which wines and the techniques used to produce them are analysed. A wine's composition is analysed to determine its principal components and quantify them chemically and biologically. The most obvious example is laboratory analysis, through which we can distinguish components such as water, alcohol, acids, ash, sulphur dioxide and non-volatile extracts. More complex techniques reveal the presence of up to a 100 minor substances. Laboratory, that is chemical and biological analysis gives us essential data on the intrinsic nature of a wine but, alone, cannot supply us with the data necessary to begin to formulate a subjective approach to it - that is, the information which will allow us to choose a wine, understand whether or not we enjoy it or learn to better appreciate it. For example, if we take the technical analysis sheet as sole description of a wine, we won't be able to judge whether it is good or not because a wine's true nature lies not in the sum of its parts, but in the harmony that exists between them. It is precisely this that the enologist, the wine technician, can't entirely control: he can't control every single ingredient. A chef can choose raw materials himself and can mix and cook them according to a tasty recipe, controlling weight, amount and cooking times. The enologist has to work with a material, wine, which is already complex and formed when he starts work on it. We can conclude that enology, or better, enological knowledge of a wine is necessary but not sufficient to truly understand it.

In a wider sense, enology could be defined as the study of wine, including knowledge of the world's different wines, their vines of origin, production zones, classification of varieties, regulatory laws and so on. This information is external to wine as product but helps us to place a wine in its proper context according to variety, nation or region of origin etc..

The enophile is one who loves wine and builds a personal philosophy around this passion. There are many different approaches and all have something to recommend them. Some follow courses to obtain a sommelier's or taster's diploma, others frequent specialist wine shops to taste different products and arrive on an opinion about them or travel to zones of wine production to visit wineries, talk to the producers, taste wines and collect information on them. This category includes people who, despite not possessing a diploma in enology, can be considered connoisseurs of wine, some of whom may just be wine-lovers, others wine collectors and still others sommelliers or wine journalists. The latter have greater responsibility than the others, in the sense that their job involves the diffusion of information, including personal opinions, which will subsequently influence and change the opinions and judgements of others.

The hypotheses formulated so far could be considered to form an hourglass composed of two pyramids placed one on top of the other so that the points are in contact. Enologists could be considered to start from the base of the hourglass, that is, from a situation of a product which is subsequently analysed to distinguish its various components. Enophiles, that is, all the others, start from the top, from the finished product which is tasted and consumed. In both cases, a judgement is arrived at via selection of information, both generalised and detailed - facts both great and small. The enologist distils from his knowledge the analytical data which will apply only to the wine being studied. The enophile distils from his knowledge of wine in general and from his previous experience, an opinion on the wine in question. From the base of the pyramid we arrive at its tip, which is where the wine under consideration is to be found. Any judgement concerning a wine will get 'caught', as it were, in this narrow neck between the two pyramids. This is the weak point of both points of view because neither takes into consideration a factor which is fundamental to the appreciation of a wine: the subject's active role.

It's my opinion that these methods of evaluation are faulty and incomplete and my aim is to replace them with a new method, that of enosophy.

1) We've already seen that chemical analysis of a wine can give us a series of useful facts which are, however, unconnected among themselves and insufficient to arrive at a judgement. Let's consider a good Rhein Riesling: chemical analysis will indicate a total acidity of around seven grams per litre and the wine is enjoyable. But, if you take a Chardonnay with the same level of acidity, the wine will be too acidic and seem unpleasant. Here, chemical analysis has provided us with information which cannot be used to pass a final judgement on the wine unless it is supported by other data to complete the picture.

2) A system of classification allows us to divide wines up into categories, groups and origins and to compare and contrast them with wines from the same category. Not that we all do this: when we drink a Burgundy, we will judge it according to all the other Burgundies that we've ever consumed. Our visual, olfactory and gustatory memory will serve us here. This is the sort of tasting we might indulge in while in a restaurant with some friends, commenting our judgement thus: "Yes, it's a typical Burgundy," or "It's a bit lighter than most Burgundies," or, again, "For a Burgundy it's a bit too young." These might be correct judgements but they're too empirical, too generalised and inexact and certainly too unscientific. This method will allow us to avoid big errors of judgement, permitting us to categorise a wine approximately but it doesn't permit a deep understanding of the wine. In addition, this method requires previous experience, something not everyone has, and might also be considered a prejudice, in that the opinion is directly related to ideas and prejudices formed during past personal experience of the wine.

3) Organoleptic tasting is the most common and widely-accepted method and the one employed by professional tasters and wine critics. The organoleptic characteristics of a wine are described via a written passage or a points system. Usually a descriptive judgement is subsequently translated into a numerical score. At first glance, this gives the impression of being the soundest system: it includes analysis and the use of numbers which give it a sheen of science. However, nothing could be further from true scientific values than the points system of a wine-tasting. I've observed many times in the past how two samples of the same wine presented anonymously at a single tasting will obtain different scores - perception is in a constant state of flux. What is it that makes it change in this way and how can we reduce this variable?

What are the factors that influence a wine-taster judgement of a wine at a given point in time? Before discussing characteristics of the wine itself, it is interesting and useful to imagine what other factors influence a taster's immediate experience.
These factors can be grouped into two broad categories: the taster's subjective experience and external factors. Subjective experience includes the drinker's age, sex, state of his/her taste buds, past experience, personal preference, mood, environment, company, temperature and service of wine.
External factors take into account the price of the wine, the aesthetics of packaging, information from advertising or other sources such as books and wine guides. These issues will be explored further in the next chapters.

Wine is always a subjective experience. The completely impartial taster doesn't exist and no taster is infallible. In the best possible case, the taster will be influenced by his own theories on the wine, which will form a kind of pre-judgement view-point, buffering the taster and his identification with the wine.
In theory, the solution to this problem would be a computer capable of judging wines with complete impartiality. If this were possible, we would have solved the problem of tasting and could pension off all tasters with their human subjectivity, imprecision, fallibility and tendentiousness, and replace them with infallible, objective, independent computers. An interesting hypothesis but an impractical one. From an enosophical point of view, these mechanical judgements would be interesting but useless, because they would tell us nothing about our relationship with the wine - something belonging to the individual drinker. If a computer told me that a wine had a score of 100, I'd find this intriguing but I wouldn't be any the wiser about what my experience might be on tasting the wine. Wine needs to be placed firmly in the hands of the only person who can truly appreciate and judge it: the individual drinker.

The experience of a wine is an emotional one which may be influenced by a subject's emotional state and the context of the drinking experience.