Having established, thanks to my very kind readers, that 30 drams = two shots, I confess that I was still a tad baffled. The historian made it clear that the increase in the liquor ration demonstrated terrible judgement on the part of the leader. Perhaps it's the ivory tower sherry drinking academic in me, but two shots a day, while not necessarily healthy, didn't sound like all that much.
Then I reread the passage in question. The men were given 30 drams at every meal. Now all is clear.
Words Written: big writing day today
Lessons Graded: fifteen (one more to go)
2 comments:
I've been curious as to the general subject matter of your dissertation for some time now. If you've specified explicitly, I've missed it. Now I'm ready to make a thoroughly uneducated guess: late 18th- early 19th century American history? If I had to take a wild stab in the dark, I'd say the Leiws and Clark Expedition.
You need not confirm or deny.
Well, now, two shots with dinner isn't unreasonable. And two shots with lunch, while verboten now, wasn't unheard of 30 years ago. Two shots for breakfast... OK, I just can't defend that.
On the other hand, it'd be interesting to know exactly what kind of booze we're talking about here. Vermouth, for example, was very popular in your time period, and two shots of it is certainly a far cry from two shots of Cuervo.
Also there's the question of how it was to be drunk... mixed in with a ship's grog, to make the water a little less "lively", again is different than just lining up jello shooters.
I really do feel like the librarianship of food and/or booze would be my true calling...
Post a Comment