1665. After his death his son published some of his writings under

the title of Varia Opera Mathematica[414]; and in this collection is inserted his short treatise on the _hydroscopium_, from which I have extracted the following explanation. It is impossible, says he, that the _hydroscopium_ could be the level or _chorobates_ of Vitruvius, for the lines on the latter were perpendicular to the horizon, whereas the lines on the former were parallel to it. The _hydroscopium_ was undoubtedly a hydrometer of the simplest construction. The tube may be made of copper, and open at the top; but at the other end, which, when used, is the lowest, it must terminate with a cone, the base of which is soldered to that of the tube. Lengthwise, along the tube, are drawn two lines, which are intersected by others, and the more numerous these divisions are, the instrument will be so much more correct. When placed in water, it sinks to a certain depth, which will be marked by the cross lines, and which will be greater in proportion to the lightness of the water. A figure, which is added, illustrates this explanation more than was necessary. When a common friend of Fermat and Petavius showed it to the latter, he considered it to be so just, that he wished to have an opportunity of introducing it in a new edition. Mersenne, on the other hand, entertains some doubt[415] respecting this instrument, though he does not mention Fermat, with whom he was well-acquainted; for in the dispute which the latter had with Descartes, Mersenne was the bearer of the letters that passed between them, as we learn from the Life of Descartes, by Baillet. His objections however are of little weight. Why should Synesius, asks Mersenne, consider himself unfortunate, because he had not a hydrometer? It may be here replied, that he was in an infirm state, and that the physicians seem to have ordered him to drink no water but what was pure and light. We know that in former times, when so many artificial liquors were not in use, people were accustomed, more than at present, to good water. We read in the works of the ancient physicians, such as Galen and Celsus, directions how to examine the lightness and purity of water. He might have tried it, says Mersenne, with a common balance. He indeed might, but not so conveniently. That Synesius was in a bad state of health is apparent from several of his letters; otherwise one might say that in a letter many expressions may be only jocular, respecting some circumstance known to the friend to whom one writes; and that every expression is not to be taken according to its literal meaning. One might confess also, without weakening a received explanation, not to know what Synesius alludes to in the first line of his letter. But even if we allow that the instrument was not a hydrometer, but a water-clock, or a level; it may be asked how the want of these could make him unfortunate? Mersenne thinks further, that the cone, added to the end of the tube, would have been unnecessary in a hydrometer; but it serves to keep the instrument with more ease in a perpendicular direction in the water. Such is the opinion of H. Klugel, whom I shall soon have occasion to quote. For the explanation of Fermat one may produce a still stronger testimony, with which he seems not to have been acquainted. It can be proved that this instrument was used in the next, or at least in the sixth century. Of that period, we have a Latin poem on weights and measures, which contains a very just description of a hydrometer. The author, in manuscripts, is called sometimes _Priscianus_, and sometimes _Rhemnius Fannius Palæmon_; but we know, from grounds which do not belong to this subject, that the former was his real name. Two persons of that name are known at present. The one, Theodore Priscian, was a physician, and lived in the time of the emperor Valentinian, towards the end of the fourth century. As more physicians have written on weights and measures, with which it is indispensably necessary they should be acquainted, one might conjecture that this Priscian was the author of the above poem. The rest of his writings, however, still preserved, are in so coarse and heavy a style, that one can scarcely ascribe to him a work which is far from being ill-written; especially as it is nowhere said that he was a poet. With much more probability may we consider as the author the well-known grammarian Priscian, who died about the year 528. This poem has been often printed, and not unfrequently at the end of Q. Sereni Samonici De Medicina Præcepta. The best edition is that inserted by Wernsdorf in the fifth part of the first volume of his Poetæ Minores, where an account may be found of the other editions. Be the author who he may, this much is evident, that he was acquainted with the hydrometer of Synesius, and has described it in a very clear manner. “Fluids,” says he, “are different in weight, as may be proved by the specific gravity of oil and honey compared with that of pure water;” and the given proportion agrees almost with that found by modern experiments. “This,” adds he, “may be discovered by an instrument,” which he thus describes:--“It consists of a thin metallic cylinder made of silver or copper, about as large as the joint of a reed between two knots, to the end of which is added a cone. This cone makes the lower end so heavy, that the instrument, without sinking or floating on the surface, remains suspended perpendicularly in the water. Lengthwise, upon the cylinder, is drawn a line, which is divided by cross lines into as many parts as are equal to the weight of the instrument in _scripla_. If placed in light fluids, more of the divisions will be covered than when put into heavy fluids; or it sinks deeper into those which are light than into those which are heavy. This difference of gravity may be found also,” continues he, “by filling vessels of equal size with the fluids and weighing them; for the heavier must then weigh most; but when one takes an equal weight of two fluids, the lighter will occupy more space than the heavier. If twenty-one divisions of the instrument are covered in water, and twenty-four in oil, and if one take twenty-four _scripla_ of water, twenty-one _scripla_ of oil only can be contained in the space occupied by the water.” Such is the manner in which Professor Klugel has conjectured the meaning of the author from hydrostatic principles; though neither he nor Wernsdorf has ventured to give a literal translation of the words which ought to convey this explanation. But however obscure they may be, it evidently appears that they allude to a hydrometer. This poem was once published together with Celsus De Re Medica, in 1566, by Robert Constantin, who died at an advanced age in 1605, and who added a few, but excellent notes, which have been inserted by Wernsdorf in his edition. This Constantin seems to have known that the instrument of Priscian and the _hydroscopium_ of Synesius were the same; and that they were used for determining the weight of fluids. He explains the use of them very properly; but is mistaken in supposing the cone to have been of wood, though it served to render the lower part of the instrument heavier, as the poet himself says: “cui cono interius modico pars ima gravatur.” I am almost induced to think that _interius_ implies that additional weight was given to the cone by throwing some small heavy bodies into it, through the opening above; and at present grains of leaden shot are employed for that purpose. It appears therefore that the honour of having first given a good explanation of the before-quoted passage of Synesius belongs rather to Constantin than to Fermat; but I can readily believe that the latter was not acquainted with the observations made on it by the former. Before I conclude the history of this instrument among the ancients, I shall add two remarks further. It is evidently wrong when one, with Muschenbroek and others, whose opinion I adopted before I engaged in this research, considers Hypatia as the inventress of the hydrometer. It was known at her time, and was made at Alexandria; but it seems not to have been very common, as Synesius wrote to Hypatia to procure him one, and even thought it necessary to give her a description of it. Those are mistaken likewise, who say that this instrument was called also _baryllium_. That word, as far as I have been able to learn, occurs only in Synesius, who expressly tells us that the small heavy cone alone was meant by it. In the same manner has it been understood by Constantin. In the Dictionary of Basle it is said to be _hydroscopii pars_; and in Stephen’s Dictionary it is explained by _pondusculum_, as well as in that of Ernest, where it is given as the diminutive of _baros_. It signified therefore the heavy part of the hydrometer only. It is equally erroneous when one says, with Muschenbroek and others, that those who among the Romans made it their employment to examine the quality of water with the hydrometer, were called _baryllistæ_ or _barynilæ_. These words do not occur in the works of the ancient Latin authors, nor in any of the completest dictionaries. We read only the following passage in some editions of the Commentary of Servius upon Virgil: “Scrutatores et repertores aquarum (aquilices dicuntur) barinulas dixerunt[416].” If these words were really written by Servius, who lived in the fifth century, he either confounded the water-searchers, _aquilices_, those who sought for springs, with those who examined the nature of water when found, as the hydrometer was of no service to the former in their business; or both employments must at that time have been followed by the same people, and these must have acquired their name from a part only of one instrument they used, which is not at all probable. I think we may with certainty believe that the hydrometer was not known to Seneca, Pliny, or Galen, who died about the end of the second century. Were not this the case, it would certainly have been mentioned by the first, where he speaks so minutely of the specific gravity of hard and fluid bodies[417]; by the second, where he says that the weight of water was ascertained by a common balance[418]; and by the last, where he gives directions how to discover its lightness. Galen adds, that in his time a method had been invented of determining the quality of salt-lye by placing an egg in it, and observing whether it floated[419]. Have we not reason to think that on this occasion the hydrometer must have occurred to him had it been then used? But however well-known it may have been in the fifth century, it seems that it was afterwards entirely forgotten, and that towards the end of the sixteenth it was again for the first time revived or invented anew. To George Agricola it was scarcely known; for where he speaks of the weight of different kinds of water, and particularly of that of salt springs[420], he does not mention it. Constantin, however, who lived at the same time, must have been acquainted with it, else he could not have explained the before-mentioned passages of Synesius and Priscian. I am inclined to think that the first account of the hydrometer being again brought into use must be found in the oldest German books on salt-works. It is at any rate certain that from these the modern philosophers became first acquainted with it. One of the earliest who has described it is the Jesuit Cabeus, who wrote about the year 1644[421]; but he confesses that he acquired his information from a German treatise by Tholden, whom Kircher[422] calls a German artist. He was however not properly an artist. He was a native of Hesse; a good chemist for his time; and resided about the year 1600 or 1614 as overseer of the salt-works at Frankenhausen in Thuringia. His treatise, which Cabeus had in his possession, was entitled Tholden’s Haligraphia, printed at Leipsic in 1603. Another edition, printed at the same place in 1613, is mentioned by Draudius; but at present I have not been able to find it; and can say only from Cabeus and Leupold, that Tholden’s hydrometer had a weight suspended to it; and that he speaks of the instrument not as a new but a well-known invention, and on that account has described it only imperfectly. Kircher, whose works were generally read, seems to have principally contributed towards making it publicly known; and Schott[423], Sturm[424] and others, in their account of it, refer to his writings. The artists at Nuremberg, who worked in glass, and who constructed a great many hydrometers which were everywhere sold, assisted in this likewise. One, above all, made by Michael Sigismund Hack, was highly valued about the beginning of the last century, as we are told by J. Henry Muller, professor at Altorf. Of this artist, often mentioned by Sturm and other philosophers, an account has been given by Doppelmayer. He died in 1724. Many improvements, or perhaps only alterations, have been made in this instrument in later times by a variety of artists. The task of collecting these completely in chronological order with explanations, I shall leave to others; and only mention a few of them. One of the first who endeavoured to adapt the hydrometer for determining the specific gravity and purity of metals was Monconys. Almost about the same period Cornelius Mayer and Boyle seem to have conceived the idea of facilitating the weighing of solid bodies by a weighing-scale added to the instrument. The former affirms that this improvement was invented by him as early as the year 1668[425]; whereas Boyle did not make his known till 1675[426]. Besides these the following also are worthy of notice: Feuille[427], Fahrenheit, Clark[428], and Leutmann[429], whose improvements have been described by Wolf[430], Leupold[431], Gesner, Weigel and others. [The principal hydrometer now in use is that of Sykes, this is adopted in estimating excise duties on liquids. That of Baumé is principally employed abroad. Those of Beck or Cartier are but rarely used. These instruments differ merely in their graduation. Sykes’s plan of increasing the extent of the indications without enlarging the instrument is ingenious. It is effected by means of a number of weights which may be appended as collars to the stem of the instrument. A useful method of ascertaining specific gravities for commercial purposes, consists in using a series of glass beads, previously adjusted and numbered. When thrown into any liquid, the heavier ones sink and the lighter float on the surface; but the one which has the same density as the liquid will remain indifferent, or perhaps slightly below the surface. The specific gravity is then found by the number with which it is marked.] FOOTNOTES [413] A fuller account of Hypatia may be found in Menagii Histor. Mulier. Philosoph. Lugd. 1690; Bruckeri Hist. Crit. Philos. ii. p. 351; and Wolfii Fragmenta Mulierum Græc. Gott. 1739, 4to. [414] Varia Opera Mathematica D. Petri de Fermat, Tolosæ, 1679, folio. [415] Cogitata Physico-Mathem. Par., 1644, and in Phænomena Hydraulica. [416] On Georg. i. 109. These words are quoted by Emmenessius, the editor of the Variorum edition of Virgil, but in the edition of Servius, Venetiis, 1562, fol., they are not to be found. The Commentary of Servius may at present be no longer indispensable for explaining Virgil; but it deserves to be printed once more as completely and accurately as possible. It contains much useful information, as well as many fragments of works now lost; and on this account cannot well be entirely dispensed with. [417] Quæst. Nat. iii. 25, p. 726. [418] Hist. Nat. xxxi. 3, sect. 23, p. 552.--Athen. ii. p. 46.--Plutarchi Quæst. Nat. 7. [419] De Simplic. Med. Facultatibus, iv. 20. [420] De Natura eorum quæ effluunt ex Terra, lib. ii. p. 124. [421] Philosophia Experimentalis, sive Commentaria in Aristotelis Meteorolog. lib. ii. textus 26, quæst. 2, tom. ii. p. 158, b. [422] Mundus Subterraneus, vol. i. p. 254. [423] Cursus Mathemat. p. 455, icon. 20. [424] Collegii Experiment. pars ii. Norimb. 1715, 4to. [425] Nuovi Ritrovamenti. Roma, 1696, fol. [426] Philosoph. Transact. 1675: where an engraving is given of all the parts. [427] Journal des Observations Physiques et Math. Par. 1714, 4to. [428] Philosoph. Transact. No. 384, p. 140; and No. 413, p. 277. [429] Comment. Acad. Petrop. v. p. 274. [430] In his Versuchen. Halle, 1737, 8vo, i. p. 556. [431] Theatrum Hydrostaticum. LIGHTING OF STREETS. The lighting of streets, while it greatly contributes to ornament our principal cities, adds considerably also to the convenience and security of the inhabitants. But of whatever benefit it may be, it is generally considered as a modern invention. M. St. Evremond says, “The invention of lighting the streets of Paris during the night, by a multitude of lamps, deserves that the most distant nations should go to see what neither the Greeks nor the Romans ever thought of for the police of their republics.” This opinion appears to be well-founded; for I have never yet met with any information which proves that the streets of Rome were lighted. Some passages, indeed, in ancient authors rather indicate the contrary; and according to my ideas, the Romans would not have considered the use of flambeaux and lanterns so necessary on their return from their nocturnal visits, as they seem to have done, had their streets been lighted; though I will allow that the public lighting of the streets in our cities does not render links or lanterns altogether superfluous. Whoever walked the streets of Rome at night without a lantern, was under the necessity of creeping home in perfect darkness, and in great danger[432], like Alexis in Athenæus. Meursius endeavours to make it appear that the streets of Rome were lighted; and in support of this opinion quotes Ammianus Marcellinus, and the Life of Julius Cæsar in Suetonius; but his arguments to me are far from being convincing[433]. That Naples was not lighted, appears from the return of Gito in the night-time, mentioned by Petronius[434]. Some circumstances however related by ancient authors make it probable that Antioch, Rome and a few other cities had public lanterns, if not in all the streets, at least in those which were most frequented. Libanius, who lived in the beginning of the fourth century, says in his Panegyric[435], where he praises his native city Antioch, “The light of the sun is succeeded by other lights, which are far superior to the lamps lighted by the Egyptians on the festival of Minerva of Sais. The night with us differs from the day only in the appearance of the light: with regard to labour and employment everything goes on well. Some work continually; but others laugh and amuse themselves with singing.” I cannot allow myself to imagine that the sophist here considers it as a subject of praise to his native city, that the inhabitants after sun-set did not sit in darkness, but used lights to work by. It appears, therefore, that he alludes to the lighting of the streets. In another passage, in the oration to Ellebichus[436], the same author tells us, that the ropes from which the lamps that ornamented the city were suspended, had been cut by some riotous soldiers, not far from a bath. “Proceeding,” says he, “to a bath not far off, they cut with their swords the ropes from which were suspended the lamps that afforded light in the night-time, to show that the ornaments of the city ought to give way to them.” This quotation indicates, at any rate, that there were lamps suspended from ropes near the baths and places of greatest resort. The following passage of Jerome, however, seems to make it probable, or rather certain, that the streets of Antioch were lighted. In the altercation between a Luciferan and an Orthodox, he relates that an adherent of the schismatic Lucifer disputed in the street with a true believer till the streets were lighted, when the listening crowd departed; and that they then spat in each other’s face, and retired. In the elegant edition of the works of that father, by Dominicus Vallarsius, we have a short dissertation on the time when this unmannerly dispute took place; and the editor shows that it happened at Antioch in the year 378[437]. Basilius the Great, in a letter to Martinianus, giving an account of the miserable situation of his native city Cæsarea, in Cappadocia, in the year 371, says they had nights without lights (_noctes non illustratas_). Most commentators explain this passage as if it meant that the lamps in the streets had not been lighted[438]. That the streets, not only of Antioch, but also of Edessa, in Syria, were lighted in the fifth century, seems proved by a passage in the History of Jesue Stylites. It is there expressly said, that Eulogius, governor of Edessa, about the year 505, ordered lamps to be kept burning in the streets during the night; and that he employed for that purpose a part of the oil which was before given to the churches and monasteries[439]. With regard to the public lighting of whole cities on festivals, and particularly on joyful occasions, which we call illuminations, that practice seems to be of great antiquity. Of this kind was a particular festival of the Egyptians[440], during which lamps were placed before all the houses throughout the country, and kept burning the whole night[441]. During that festival of the Jews, called _festum encæniorum_, the feast of the Dedication of the Temple, which, according to common opinion, was celebrated in December, and continued eight days, a number of lamps were lighted before each of their houses. A passage in Æschylus shows that such illuminations were used also in Greece. At Rome, the forum was lighted when games were exhibited in the night-time; and Caligula, on a like occasion, caused the whole city to be lighted[442]. As Cicero was returning home late at night, after Catiline’s conspiracy had been defeated, lamps and torches were lighted in all the streets in honour of that great orator. The emperor Constantine caused the whole city of Constantinople to be illuminated with lamps and wax candles on Easter eve[443]. The fathers of the first century frequently inveigh against the Christians, because, to please the heathens, they often illuminated their houses, on idolatrous festivals, in a more elegant manner than they. This they considered as a species of idolatry[444]. That the houses of the ancients were illuminated on birth-days, by suspending lamps from chains, is too well known to require any proof[445]. Of modern cities, Paris, as far as I have been able to learn, was the first that followed the example of the ancients by lighting its streets. As this city, in the beginning of the sixteenth century, was much infested with street robbers and incendiaries, the inhabitants were, from time to time, ordered to keep lights burning, after nine in the evening, before the windows of all the houses which fronted the street. This order was issued in the year 1524, and renewed in 1526 and 1553[446]; but in the month of October 1558, _falots_ were erected at the corners of the streets, or, when the street was so long that it could not be lighted by one, three were erected in three different parts of it. These lights had, in a certain measure, a resemblance to those used in some mines; for we are told, in the Grand Vocabulaire François[447], that _falot_ is a large vase filled with pitch, rosin, and other combustibles, employed in the king’s palace and houses of princes to light the courts. At that period there were in Paris 912 streets; so that the number of lights then used must have been less than 2736. In the month of November, the same year, these lights were changed for lanterns of the like kind as those used at present. The lighting of the streets of Paris continued, however, for a long time to be very imperfect, till the abbé Laudati, an Italian of the Caraffa family, conceived the idea of letting out torches and lanterns for hire. In the month of March 1662, he obtained an exclusive privilege to this establishment for twenty years; and he undertook to erect, at certain places, not only in Paris, but also in other cities of the kingdom, booths or posts where any person might hire a link or lantern, or, on paying a certain sum, might be attended through the streets by a man bearing a light. He was authorised to receive from every one who hired a lantern to a coach, five sous for a quarter of an hour; and from every foot-passenger, three sous. To prevent all disputes in regard to time, it was ordered that a regulated hour-glass should be carried along with each lantern. In 1667, however, the lighting of the city of Paris was put on that footing on which it is at present. At the same time the police was greatly improved, and it afterwards served as a pattern to most of the other cities in Europe. Affairs of judicature, and those respecting the public police, instead of being committed, as before, to one magistrate, called the “Lieutenant civil du prevost de Paris,” were by a royal edict, of the month of March in the above year, divided between two persons. One of them, who had the management of judicial affairs, retained the old title; and the other, who superintended the police, had that of “Lieutenant du prevost de Paris pour la police,” or “Lieutenant général de police.” The first lieutenant of police was Nicholas de Reynie, a man who, according to the praises bestowed on him by French writers, formed an epoch in the history of modern police. In the History of Paris, so often already quoted, he is called an enlightened, upright, and vigilant magistrate, as zealous for the service of the king as for the good of the public, and who succeeded so well in this new office, that we may say, adds the author, it is to him, more than to any other, that we are indebted for the good order which prevails at present in Paris. The first useful regulation by which La Reynie rendered a service to the police, was that for improving the (_guet_) night-watch, and the lighting of the streets. I can find no complete account of the changes he introduced; but four years after, that is, on the 23rd of May 1671, an order was made that the lanterns every year should be lighted from the 20th of October till the end of March in the year following, and even during moonlight; because the latter was of little use in bad weather, and even in fine weather was not sufficient to light some of the most dangerous streets. Before this period the streets were lighted only during the four winter months; and on account of the numberless atrocities committed in the night-time, when there were no lights, the Parisians offered to contribute as much money as should be sufficient to defray the expense of keeping the lamps lighted throughout the whole winter. The lamps employed by La Reynie were, on account of their likeness to a bucket, called _lanternes à seau_, and succeeded those invented by one Herault, called _lanternes à cul-de-lampe_. When De Sartines held the office of lieutenant de police, a premium was offered to whoever should discover the most advantageous means of improving the lighting of the streets; and the Academy of Sciences were to decide on the different plans that might be proposed. In consequence of this offer, a journeyman glazier, named Goujon, received a premium of 200 livres, and Messrs. Bailly, Le Roy, and Bourgeois de Chateaublanc 2000 livres. To the last-mentioned gentleman is ascribed the invention of the present reverberating lamps, described by La Vieil, which were introduced in 1766. In a small work, called an Essay on Lanterns, by a society of literary men[448], which, though written to ridicule antiquarian researches and certain persons at Paris, contains some authentic information respecting the lighting of the streets, we are told that reverberating lamps were invented by an abbé P., who therefore, says the author humorously, is the second abbé who can boast of having enlightened the first city in the world. The superiority of these lamps cannot be denied; but, besides their expense, they are attended with this disadvantage when they hang in the middle of the street, that they throw a shade over it, so that one cannot be known by those who pass. In cities also, where people walk principally in the middle of the streets, or where the streets are broad, they are not very convenient, and they occasion a stoppage when it is necessary to clean them. In the year 1721, the lamps in Paris are said to have amounted to 5772; but in the Tableau de Paris, printed in 1760, the number is reckoned to be only 5694, and in the Curiosités de Paris, 1771, they are stated to be 6232. In 1777, the road between Paris and Versailles, which is about nine miles in length, was lighted at the yearly expense of 15,000 livres by the same contractors who lighted Paris. The city of Nantes was lighted the same year; and in 1780 had 500 lamps. Strasburg began to be lighted in 1779. If what Maitland says in his history[449] be true, that in the year 1414 an order was issued for hanging out lanterns to light the streets, and if that regulation was continued after the above period, which I very much doubt, then must it be allowed that London preceded Paris in this useful establishment. Maitland refers for his authority to Stow’s Survey of London; but in the edition of that work published in 1633, I find only, where a list of the magistrates is given, the following information:--“1417, Mayor, Sir Henry Barton, skinner. This Henry Barton ordained lanthorns with lights to bee hanged out on the winter evenings, betwixt Hallontide and Candlemasse.” Nothing more occurs in the edition by Strype, published in 1720. In the year 1668, when several regulations were made for improving the streets, the Londoners were reminded that they should hang out lanterns duly at the accustomed time[450]. In the year 1690 this order was renewed, and every housekeeper was required to hang out a light or lamp every night as soon as it was dark, between Michaelmas and Lady-day; and to keep it burning till the hour of twelve at night. In the year 1716 it was ordained by an act of common council, that all housekeepers, whose houses fronted any street, lane, or public passage, should, in every dark night, that is, every night between the second night after every full moon till the seventh night after every new moon, set or hang out one or more lights, with sufficient cotton wicks, that should continue to burn from six o’clock at night till eleven o’clock of the same night, under the penalty of one shilling. All these regulations, however, seem to have been ineffectual, owing to bad management. The city was lighted by contract, and the contractors for liberty to light it were obliged to pay annually to the city the sum of six hundred pounds. Besides, the contractors received only six shillings per annum from every housekeeper whose rent exceeded ten pounds; and all persons who hung out a lantern and candle before their houses were exempted from paying towards the public lamps. The streets were lighted no more than one hundred and seventeen nights; and as this gave great opportunity to thieves and robbers to commit depredations in the night-time, the lord mayor and common council judged it proper, in the year 1736, to apply to parliament for power to enable them to light the streets of the city in a better manner; and an act was accordingly passed, by which they were empowered to erect a sufficient number of such sort of glass lamps as they should judge proper, and to keep them burning from the setting to the rising of the sun throughout the year. Instead therefore of a thousand lamps, the number was now increased to 4679; but as these even were not sufficient, several of the wards made a considerable augmentation, so that the whole could amount to no less than 5000. This, however, was not the amount of all the lamps in London, but of those in what is properly called the city and liberties. As this division forms only a fifth part of London, Maitland reckons the whole number of public and private lamps to have been, even at that period, upwards of 15,000. The time of lighting also, which before had been only 750 hours annually, was increased to 5000. In our cities of Lower Saxony, the streets of which are not so dark as those of London, the lighting continues 1519 hours. In the year 1744, owing to the great number of robberies committed in the streets during the night, it was found necessary to apply for another act of parliament to regulate still farther the lighting of the city; and at that period this establishment was placed upon that footing on which it now stands. The lamps of London, at present (1786), are all of crystal glass; each is furnished with three wicks; and they are affixed to posts placed at the distance of a certain number of paces from each other. They are lighted every day in the year at sunset. Oxford-street alone is said to contain more lamps than all Paris. The roads, even, seven or eight miles round London, are lighted by such lamps; and as these roads from the city to different parts are very numerous, the lamps seen from a little distance, particularly in the county of Surrey, where a great many roads cross each other, have a beautiful and noble effect. Birmingham was lighted, for the first time, in 1733, with 700 lamps. It appears that the streets of Amsterdam were lighted by lanterns as early as 1669; for in the month of February that year, the magistrates, who in 1665 had forbidden the use of torches, issued an order against destroying the lamp-posts, to which it was customary to fasten horses. This order, as well as the instructions given to the lamp-lighters in 1669, may be found in a work called the Privileges of the city of Amsterdam. The lanterns were not of glass, but of horn; for the lamp-lighters were ordered, in their instructions, to wipe off every day the smoke of the train-oil which adhered to the horn of the lanterns. At the Hague an order was issued in the month of October 1553, that the inhabitants should place lights before their doors during dark nights; and afterwards small stone buildings were erected at the corners of the principal streets, in which lights were kept burning; but in the year 1678 lamps were fixed up in all the streets. The streets of Copenhagen were first lighted by lamps in 1681; and on the 16th of July 1683 new regulations were made, by which the plan was much improved, as well as that of the night-watch. The streets of Rome are not yet lighted. Sixtus V. was desirous to introduce this improvement in the police, but he met with insurmountable obstacles. That the benefit of lighting might be enjoyed in some measure, he ordered the number of the lights placed before the images of saints to be augmented. De la Lande says, in his Travels, that Venice had been lighted for some years before the period when he wrote, by 3000 lamps. Messina and Palermo, in Sicily, are both lighted. Madrid, which till lately was the dirtiest of all the capital cities of Europe, is at present as well lighted as London[451]. Valencia in Spain was some years ago indebted for this improvement to Joachim Manuel Fos, then inspector of the manufactories. Barcelona is lighted also[452]. Lisbon however has no lights. The streets of Philadelphia are lighted, and on each side there is a foot-pavement. In the year 1672 the council of Hamburg made a proposal to the citizens for lighting the streets. The year following this proposal was accepted, but the lamps were not fixed up till two years after, that is to say in 1675. In the year 1679, Berlin had advanced so far towards this improvement, that the inhabitants were obliged in turns to hang out a lantern with a light at every third house. In 1682, the Elector Frederick William caused lamp-posts with lamps to be erected, notwithstanding the opposition made by the inhabitants on account of the expense. In a petition which they presented in 1680, they stated that the lamps cost 5000 dollars, and that 3000 were required yearly to keep them lighted. At present Berlin has 2354 lamps, which are kept lighted from September till May, and at the king’s expense. Potsdam has 590[453]. Vienna began to be lighted in the year 1687. The lights were hung out in the evening on a signal given by the fire-bell. In 1704 lamps were introduced; but at first the light which they afforded was very imperfect, as the lamps burned badly, and because, to save the expense of lamp-lighters, every housekeeper was obliged daily to remove the empty lamps, to carry them to the lamp-office to be filled, and to light them again on a signal given with a bell. In 1776, the lamps, which before amounted to 2000, were increased to 3000, and a contract was entered into for lighting them at the rate of 30,000 florins. These lamps were invented by counsellor Sonnenfels, and amounted in 1779 to 3445. They are made of white glass, in a globular form, and have a covering of tin-plate, painted red on the outside and polished within. They are supported by lamp-irons, fixed in the houses at the height of fifteen feet from the earth. Each lantern is only sixteen paces distant from the other, so that the streets are completely illuminated. They are kept lighted both summer and winter, whether the moon shines or not; and this is more necessary at Vienna than anywhere else, on account of the height of the houses and the narrowness and crookedness of the streets. The lamp-lighters wear an uniform, and are under military discipline. In 1783 the yearly expense of the lamps was estimated at only 17,000 florins[454]. Leipzig was lighted in 1702, and Dresden in 1705. In 1766, the number of lamps at the latter amounted only to 728, for the lighting of which oil of rape-seed was employed. In Cassel the streets began to be lighted under the Landgrave Charles, in 1721; but as regulations were not made sufficient to support this improvement, it was at length dropped. It was however revived in 1748, and in 1778 the number of the lamps was increased to 1013, besides those at the landgrave’s palace. Hanover was lighted in 1696, Halle in 1728, and Göttingen in 1735. Brunswick since 1765 has had 1565 lamps. Zurich has been lighted since 1778, but the lamps are very few in number. [Such was the state of street-lighting towards the end of the last century, and many of the readers of this work will remember the round glass lamps and their dismal oil-light, which long after the streets of London were illuminated with gas, still continued to be employed in the outskirts of this immense metropolis. How changed is all this now, and how surprising must it appear, that a thing so simple as the employment of the combustible gases produced in the distillation of coal and other bodies of organic origin should date from so recent a period! But such is the case with most of the improvements which tend to the comfort and happiness of the human race; slow and by degrees they progress towards perfection,--a fact most admirably illustrated by numerous articles contained in these volumes. The first idea of applying coal-gas to œconomical purposes is generally attributed to Mr. William Murdoch, who in 1792 employed coal-gas for lighting his house and offices at Redruth in Cornwall, and in 1798 constructed the apparatus for the purpose of lighting Boulton and Watt’s celebrated manufactory at Soho, near Birmingham, which on the occasion of the peace in 1802 was publicly illuminated by the same means. This display vastly attracted public attention to the subject, and soon after several manufacturers whose works required light and heat adopted the use of gas; a button manufactory at Birmingham used it largely for soldering; Halifax, Manchester and other towns soon followed. A single cotton-mill in Manchester used above 900 burners, and had several miles of pipe laid down to supply them. Mr. Murdoch, who erected the apparatus used in this mill, sent a detailed account of his operations to the Royal Society in 1808, and received the gold medal of that body. It appears, however, from an interesting paper by R. C. Taylor on the coal-fields of China[455], that the Chinese, if not manufacturers, are nevertheless gas consumers and employers on a grand scale, and have evidently been so ages before the knowledge of its application was acquired by Europeans. Beds of coal are frequently pierced by the borers for salt water; and the inflammable gas is forced up in jets twenty or thirty feet in height. From these fountains the vapour has been conveyed to the salt-works in pipes, and there used for the boiling and evaporation of the salt; other tubes convey the gas intended for lighting the streets and the larger apartments and kitchens. As there is still more gas than required, the excess is conducted beyond the limits of the salt-works, and there forms separate chimneys or columns of flame. But this, like many other discoveries of the Chinese, remained, owing to their exclusive habits, unknown to us till within a recent period, and the world may fairly be said to be indebted to Mr. Winsor, for the vast benefit conferred upon it by gas-illumination. After several experiments, this gentleman in 1803-1804 lighted the Lyceum theatre, and shortly afterwards, in 1807, one side of Pall-Mall with gas distilled from coal. Soon after that period companies were formed for carrying on the manufacture of gas upon an extensive scale, oil-lamps were banished from all the great thoroughfares of the metropolis, and in the course of fifteen years not only was every street and alley illuminated from the same source, but it was generally introduced into shops and houses, was carried into the suburbs, and has now become general in every town and city of the empire. It would lead us too far to enter into minute details concerning the structure, uses and arrangement of the various apparatus employed in the production of gas; it will suffice to observe that when coal is heated to redness in a close vessel, it yields a variety of products which may be classed under three heads, as,--1st, permanent gases; 2ndly, vapours condensable into the liquid or solid state by cooling; and 3rdly, the residuary matter, coke, which remains in the retort. The object of gas manufacture is to separate these from each other, and to purify the gaseous products by washing and other means, so as to render them fit for combustion. The following particulars, taken from Brande’s Dictionary of Science, may serve to give an idea of the quantity of gas annually consumed in London. The oldest of the London gas-works is the establishment belonging to the original chartered company. They have three stations; the largest situated in Peter-street, Westminster; the second in Brick-lane, St. Luke’s, and the third in the Curtain-road, Shoreditch. This company consumes 50,000 chaldrons of coals annually, the produce of which in gas may be estimated at about six hundred million cubic feet, or about eighteen million seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds _weight_ of gas. It may be assumed that each chaldron of coals weighs 2880 lbs., and yields an average produce of 12,000 cubic feet of purified gas. The prime cost of gas is about four or five shillings per 1000 cubic feet; the usual retail price is from seven to ten shillings per 1000 cubic feet. The chartered company probably supplies about a fifth part of the whole of the gas consumed in London and the suburbs; so that the total annual consumption of coal employed for this important manufacture in the London district only, probably exceeds two hundred and fifty thousand chaldrons, and the quantity of gas produced for the supply of this district amounts annually to three thousand million cubic feet. The _weight_ of this quantity of gas exceeds seventy-five millions of pounds; and the _light_ produced by its combustion may be considered as equivalent to that which would be obtained by the combustion of one hundred and sixty millions of pounds of mould-candles of six to the pound. The operations of the London Gas-light Company, which was established in the year 1833, are also on a scale of great magnitude. Their works, situated at Vauxhall, are not only the most powerful, but the most complete in arrangement of any in the world. From this point their mains ramify to a prodigious extent in Middlesex as well as Surrey, and by the admirable mode in which they are laid, aided by the power of their works, they are enabled to supply gas at Highgate Hill (seven miles distance) with the same precision and in the same abundance as at Vauxhall. The extent of their pipes exceeds one hundred and fifty miles. The cost of light equivalent to that of seven mould candles (six to the pound) is in coal-gas three farthings per hour, in an Argand oil-lamp 3_d._ per hour, in mould candles 3½_d._ per hour, and in wax candles 1_s._ 2_d._ per hour. Gas has also been manufactured from oil, rosin and other substances. Oil-gas is procured abundantly by the decomposition of oil, trickled into a red-hot retort, half-filled with coke or brick. It contains no sulphuretted hydrogen, requires no purification, and is much richer in carburetted hydrogen than coal-gas. Its expense has however led nearly to the entire disuse of this kind of gas. In London there are eighteen public gas establishments and twelve companies; the capital invested in works and apparatus is estimated at 3,000,000_l._] FOOTNOTES [432] Athen. Deipn. vi. 8. p. 236. [433] Joh. Meursii Opera, ex recensione Joannis Lami. Florent. 1745, fol. v. p. 635. [434] Pet. cap. lxxix. That the author here speaks of Naples, I conclude from cap. lxxxi., where the city is called _Græca urbs_. Others, however, with less probability, are of opinion that _Capua_ is meant. [435] Libanii Opera, Lutet. 1627, fol. ii. p. 387. [436] Ib. 526. [437] See vol. ii. p. 170. [438] Valesius informs us, in his observations on Ammianus Marcellinus, that to denote public sorrow, on occasions of great misfortune, it was customary not to light the streets; and in proof of this assertion he quotes a passage of Libanius, where it is said that the people of Antioch, in order to mitigate the anger of the emperor, bethought themselves of lighting either no lamps or a very small number. [439] Assemani Bibliotheca Orientalis. Romæ, 1719, fol. i. p. 281. [440] It was called by the Greeks λυχνοκαία. [441] Herodot. lib. ii. cap. 62. [442] Suet. Vita Calig. c. 18. [443] Euseb. lib. iv. De Vita Constantini, cap. 22. Compare with the above Greg. Naz. Orat. 19, and Orat. 2, where the author alludes to the festival of Easter. [444] Tertuliian. de Idololatria, cap. xv. p. 523. See also his Apologet. cap. 35, p. 178. In both places La Cerda quotes similar passages from other writers. In Concilio Eliberitano, cap. 37, it was decreed “prohibendum etiam ne lucernas publice accendant.” See also Joh. Ciampini Vetera Monumenta, in quibus musiva opera illustrantur. Romæ, 1690, 2 vols. fol. i. p. 90, where, on a piece of mosaic work, said to be of the fifth century, some lamps are represented hanging over a door. [445] J. Lipsii Electa, lib. ii. cap. 3. [446] This order may be seen in that large and elegant work, entitled Histoire de la Ville de Paris, Felibien, revue, augmentée par Lobineau, Paris, 1725, 5 vols. folio. See vol. ii. pp. 951, 977, and vol. iv. pp. 648, 676, 764. [447] Paris, 1770, x. p. 265. [448] Essai sur les Lanternes. A Dole, 1775. [449] History of London. London, 1756, 2 vols. fol. i. p. 186. [450] Noorthouck’s History of London. Lond. 1773, 4to, p. 233. For the safety and peace of the city, all inhabitants were ordered to hang out candles duly at the accustomed hour. [451] See Twiss and Dalrymple’s Travels. [452] Swinburne’s Travels through Spain, 1779, 4to. [453] Nicolai Beschreibung von Berlin und Potsdam, pp. 308, 971. [454] Nicolai Beschreibung einer Reise, iii. pp. 212, 214. [455] Philosophical Magazine for March, 1846. NIGHT-WATCH. The establishment of those people who are obliged to keep watch in the streets of cities during the night, belongs to the oldest regulations of police. Such watchmen are mentioned in the Song of Solomon, and they occur also in the book of Psalms. Athens and other cities of Greece had at least sentinels posted in various parts; and some of the _thesmothetæ_ were obliged to visit them from time to time, in order to keep them to their duty[456]. At Rome there were _triumviri nocturni_, _cohortes vigilum_, &c. The object of all these institutions seems to have been rather the prevention of fires than the guarding against nocturnal alarms or danger; though in the course of time attention was paid to these also. When Augustus wished to strengthen the night-watch, for the purpose of suppressing nocturnal commotions, he used as a pretext the apprehension of fires only. The regulations respecting these watchmen, and the discipline to which they were subjected, were almost the same as those for night-sentinels in camps during the time of war; but it does not appear that the night-watchmen in cities were obliged to prove their presence and vigilance by singing, calling out, or by any other means. Signals were made by the patroles alone, with bells, when the watchmen wished to say anything to each other. Singing by sentinels in time of war was customary, at least among some nations; but in all probability that practice was not common in the time of peace[457]. Calling out the hours seems to have been first practised after the erection of city gates, and, in my opinion, to have taken its rise in Germany; though indeed it must be allowed that such a regulation would have been very useful in ancient Rome, where there were no clocks, and where people had nothing in their houses to announce the hours in the night-time. During the day people could know the hours after water-clocks had been constructed at the public expense, and placed in open buildings erected in various parts of the city. The case seems to have been the same in Greece; and rich families kept particular servants both male and female, whose business it was to announce to their masters and mistresses certain periods of the day, as pointed out by the city clocks. These servants consisted principally of boys and young girls, the latter being destined to attend on the ladies. It appears, however, that in the course of time water-clocks were kept also in the palaces of the great: at any rate Trimalchio, the celebrated voluptuary mentioned in Petronius, had one in his dining-room, and a servant stationed near it to proclaim the progress of the hours, that his master might know how much of his lifetime was spent; for he did not wish to lose a single moment without enjoying pleasure. I have not read everything that has been written by others on the division of time among the ancients; but after the researches I have made, I must confess that I do not know whether the hours were announced in the night-time to those who wished and had occasion to know them. There were then no clocks which struck the hours, as has been already said; and as water-clocks were both scarce and expensive, they could not be procured by labouring people, to whom it was of most importance to be acquainted with the progress of time[458]. It would therefore have been a useful and necessary regulation to have caused the watchmen in the streets to proclaim the hours, which they could have known from the public water-clocks, by blowing a horn, or by calling out. It appears, however, that people must have been soon led to such an institution, because the above methods had been long practised in war. The periods for mounting guard were determined by water-clocks; at each watch a horn was blown, and every one could by this signal know the hour of the night[459]; but I have met with no proof that these regulations were established in cities during the time of peace, though many modern writers have not hesitated to refer to the night-watch in cities what alludes only to nocturnal guards in the time of war. On the contrary, I am still more strongly inclined to think that ancient Rome was entirely destitute of such a police establishment. The bells borne by the night watchmen were used only by the patroles, as we are expressly told, or to give signals upon extraordinary occasions, such as that of a fire, or when any violence had been committed. Cicero, comparing the life of a civil with that of a military officer, says, “The former is awaked by the crowing of the cock, and the latter by the sound of the trumpet.” The former therefore had no other means of knowing the hours of the night but by attending to the noise made by that animal[460]. An ancient poet says that the cock is the trumpeter which awakens people in the time of peace[461]. The ancients indeed understood much better than the vulgar at present, who are already too much accustomed to clocks, how to determine the periods of the night by observing the stars; but here I am speaking of capital cities, and in these people are not very fond of quitting their beds to look at the stars, which are not always to be seen. Without entering into further researches respecting watchmen among the ancient Greeks and Romans, I shall prove, by such testimonies as I am acquainted with, that the police establishment of which I speak is more modern in our cities than one might suppose. But I must except Paris; for it appears that night-watching was established there, as at Rome, in the commencement of its monarchy. De la Mare[462] quotes the ordinances on this subject of Clothaire II., in the year 595, of Charlemagne, and of the following periods. At first the citizens were obliged to keep watch in turns, under the command of a _miles gueti_, who was called also _chevalier_. The French writers remark on this circumstance, that the term _guet_, which occurs in the oldest ordinances, was formed from the German words _wache_, _wacht_, the guard, or watch; and in like manner several other ancient German military terms, such as _bivouac_, _landsquenet_, &c.[463] have been retained in the French language. In the course of time, when general tranquillity prevailed, a custom was gradually introduced of avoiding the duty of watching by paying a certain sum of money, until at length permanent _compagnies de guet_ were established in Paris, Lyons, Orleans, and afterwards in other cities. If I am not mistaken, the establishment of single watchmen, who go through the streets and call out the hours, is peculiar to Germany, and was copied only in modern times by our neighbours. The antiquity of it however I will not venture to determine[464]. At Berlin, the elector John George appointed watchmen in the year 1588[465]; but in 1677 there were none in that capital, and the city officers were obliged to call out the hours[466]. Montagne, during his travels in 1580, thought the calling out of the night-watch in the German cities a very singular custom. “The watchmen,” says he, “went about the houses in the night-time, not so much on account of thieves as on account of fires and other alarms. When the clocks struck, the one was obliged to call out aloud to the other, and to ask what it was o’clock, and then to wish him a good night[467].” This circumstance he remarks also when speaking of Inspruck. Mabillon likewise, who made a literary tour through Germany, describes calling out the hours as a practice altogether peculiar to that country. The horn of our watchmen seems to be the _buccina_ of the ancients, which, as we know, was at first an ox’s horn, though it was afterwards made of metal[468]. Rattles, which are most proper for cities, as horns are for villages, seem to be of later invention[469]. The common form, “Hear, my masters, and let me tell you,” is very old. I am not the only person to whom this question has occurred, why it should not rather be, “Ye people, or citizens.” The chancellor von Ludwig deduces it from the Romans, who, as he says, were more liberal with the word Master, like our neighbours with Messieurs, than the old Germans; but the Roman watchmen did not call out, nor yet do the French at present. If I may be allowed a conjecture on so trifling an object, I should say that the city servants or beadles were the first persons appointed to call out the hours, as was the case at Berlin. These therefore called out to their masters, and “Our masters” is still the usual appellation given to the magistrates in old cities, particularly in the central and southern portions of Germany, and in Switzerland. At Göttingen the ancient form was abolished in the year 1791, and the watchmen call out now, “The clock has struck ten, it is ten o’clock.” Watchmen who were stationed on steeples by day as well as by night, and who, every time the clock struck, were obliged to give a proof of their vigilance by blowing a horn, seem to have been first established on a permanent footing in Germany, and perhaps before watchmen in the streets. In England there are none of these watchmen; and in general they are very rare beyond the boundaries of Germany. That watchmen were posted on the tops of towers, in the earliest ages, to look out for the approach of an enemy, is well known. In the times of feudal dissension, when one chief, if he called in any assistance, could often do a great deal of hurt to a large city, either by plundering and burning the suburbs and neighbouring villages, or by driving away the cattle of the citizens, and attacking single travellers, such precaution was more necessary than at present. The nobility therefore kept in their strong castles watchmen, stationed on towers; and this practice prevailed in other countries besides Ireland and Burgundy[470]. It appears by the laws of Wales, that a watchman with a horn was kept in the king’s palace[471]. The German princes had in their castles, at any rate in the sixteenth century, tower-watchmen, who were obliged to blow a horn every morning and evening. At first, the citizens themselves were obliged to keep watch in turns on the church-steeples, as well as at the town-gates; as may be seen in a police ordinance of the city of Einbeck[472], in the year 1573. It was the duty of these watchmen, especially where there were no town clocks, to announce certain periods, such as those of opening and shutting the city-gates. The idea of giving orders to these watchmen to attend not only to danger from the enemy but from fire also, and, after the introduction of public clocks, to prove their vigilance by making a signal with their horn, must have naturally occurred; and the utility of this regulation was so important, that watchmen on steeples were retained, even when cities, by the prevalence of peace, had no occasion to be apprehensive of hostile incursions. After this period persons were appointed for the particular purpose of watching; and small apartments were constructed for them in the steeples. At first they were allowed to have their wives with them; but this was sometimes prohibited, because a profanation of the church was apprehended. In most, if not in all cities, the town-piper, or as we say at present, town-musician, was appointed steeple-watchman; and lodgings were assigned to him in the steeple; but in the course of time, as these were too high and too inconvenient, a house was given him near the church, and he was allowed to send one of his servants or domestics to keep watch in his stead. This is the case still at Göttingen. The city musician was called formerly the _Hausmann_, which name is still retained here as well as at the Hartz, in Halle, and several other places; and the steeple in which he used to dwell and keep watch was called the _Hausmann’s Thurm_[473]. These establishments, however, were not general; and were not everywhere formed at a period equally early, as will be shown by the proofs which I shall here adduce. If we can credit an Arabian author, whose Travels were published by Renaudot, the Chinese were accustomed, so early as the ninth century, to have watchmen posted on towers, who announced the hours of the day as well as of the night, by striking or beating upon a suspended board. Marco Paulo, who, in the thirteenth century, travelled through Tartary and China, confirms this account; at least in regard to a city which he calls Quinsai, though he says that signals were given only in cases of fire and disturbance. Such boards are used in China even at present[474]; and in Petersburg the watchmen who are stationed at single houses or in certain parts of the city, are accustomed to announce the hours by beating on a suspended plate of iron. Such boards are still used by the Christians in the Levant to assemble people to divine service, either because they dare not ring bells or are unable to purchase them. The former is related by Tournefort of the inhabitants of the Grecian islands, and the latter by Chardin of the Mingrelians. The like means were employed in monasteries, at the earliest periods, to give notice of the hours of prayer, and to awaken the monks[475]. Mahomet, who in his form of worship borrowed many things from the Christians of Syria and Arabia, adopted the same method of assembling the people to prayers; but when he remarked that it appeared to his followers to savour too much of Christianity, he again introduced the practice of calling out. The steeple-watchmen in Germany are often mentioned in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. In the year 1351, when the council of Erfurt renewed that police ordinance which was called the _Zuchtbrief_, letter of discipline, because it kept the people in proper subjection, it was ordered, besides other regulations in regard to fire, that two watchmen should be posted on every steeple. A watchman of this kind was appointed at Merseburg and Leisnig so early as the year 1400. In the beginning of the seventeenth century the town-piper of Leisnig lived still in apartments in the steeple. In the year 1563, a church-steeple was erected in that place, and an apartment built in it for a permanent watchman, who was obliged to announce the hours every time the clock struck. In the fifteenth century the city of Ulm kept permanent watchmen in many of the steeples. In the year 1452 a bell was suspended in the tower of the cathedral of Frankfort-on-the-Maine, which was to be rung in times of feudal alarm, and all the watchmen on the steeples were then to blow their horns and hoist their banners. In the year 1476, a room for the watchman was constructed in the steeple of the church of St. Nicholas. In the year 1509, watchmen were kept both on the watch-towers and steeples, who gave notice by firing a musket when strangers approached. The watchman on the tower of the cathedral immediately announced, by blowing a trumpet, whether the strangers were on foot or on horseback; and at the same time hung out a red flag towards the quarter in which he observed them advancing. The same watchman was obliged, likewise, to blow his horn on an alarm of fire; and that these people might be vigilant day and night, both in winter and summer, the council supplied them with fur-cloaks, seven of which, in the above-mentioned year, were purchased for ten florins and a half. In the year 1496, the large clock was put up in the steeple of Oettingen, and a person appointed to keep watch on it[476]. In 1580, Montagne was much surprised to find on the steeple at Constance a man who kept watch there continually; and who, on no account, was permitted to come down from his station. [One of the greatest improvements of modern times, in this country, is the establishment of that highly efficient body, the new police. The first introduction of the police was made by the magistrates of Cheshire in 1829, under an authority from parliament (Act 10 Geo. IV. c. 97). The first metropolitan establishment was also made in 1829. Before this time the total old force of the metropolitan watchmen consisted of 797 parochial day officers, 2785 night-watch, and upward of 100 private watchmen; including the Bow-street day and night patrol, there were about 4000 men employed in the district stretching from Brentford Bridge on the west to the river Lea on the east, and from Highgate on the north to Streatham on the south, excluding the city of London. The act of parliament creating the new police force (10 Geo. IV. c. 44) placed the control of the whole body in the hands of two commissioners, who devote their whole time to their duties. The total number of the metropolitan police in January 1840 consisted of 3486 men. These are arranged in divisions, each of which is employed in a distinct district. The metropolis is divided into “beats” and is watched day and night. Since August 1839, the horse-patrol, consisting of seventy-one mounted men, who are employed within a distance of several miles around London, has been incorporated with the metropolitan police. The Thames police consists of twenty-one surveyors, each of whom has charge of three men and a boat when on duty. The establishment is under the immediate direction of the magistrates of the Thames police-office. The police affairs of the city of London are still under its own management. In 1833, the number of persons employed in the several wards of the city was,--ordinary watchmen, 500; superintending watchmen, 65; patrolling watchmen, 91; beadles, 54; total, 710. There are about 400 men doing duty in the city at midnight. In addition to the paid watchmen, about 400 ward-constables are appointed. The expense of the day-police, consisting of about 120 men, amounts to about £9000 a year, and is defrayed by the corporation: and the sum levied on the wards for the support of the night-watch averages about £42,000 per annum. The police of the metropolis and the district within fifteen miles of Charing Cross (exclusive of the city) is regulated by the acts 10 Geo. IV. c. 44, and 2 and 3 Vict. c. 47. In nearly all the boroughs constituted under the Municipal Reform Act, a paid police force has been established on the same footing as the metropolitan police.] FOOTNOTES [456] They were called bell-bearers or bellmen, because while going the rounds they gave a signal with their bells, which the sentinels were obliged immediately to answer. See the Scholiasts on the _Aves_ of Aristophanes, ver. 841. Dio Cassius, lib. liv. 4, p. 773, says, “The watchmen in the different quarters of the city have small bells, that they may make signals to each other when they think proper.” The bells therefore did not serve for announcing the hours, as some have imagined. [457] The Persian sentinels sung in this manner when they were surprised in the city by the Romans.--Ammianus Marcell. xxiv. 15. [458] That the servants in many houses were wakened by the ringing of a bell, appears from what Lucian says in his treatise, De iis qui mercede conducti in divitum familiis vivunt, cap. xxiv. p. 245, and cap. xxxi. p. 254, Bipont edition, vol. iii. It does not however follow that there were then striking or alarm-clocks, as some have thence concluded. See Magius De Tintinnabulis, cap. 6, in Sallengre, Thesaurus Antiquit. ii. p. 1177. [459] Vegetius De Re Milit. iii. 8. That Cæsar had such clocks may be concluded from the observation which he makes in his Commentaries, on the length of the day in the islands near Ireland, lib. v. 13. Maternus, in Romische Alterthümer, iii. p. 47, endeavours to prove by what Suetonius relates of Domitian, cap. 16, that this prince had in his palace neither a sun-dial nor a water-clock. But what kind of a proof! Domitian asked what the hour was, and some one answered, the sixth. Such insignificant _dicta probantia_ have been banished from philosophy by the moderns, and ought they not to be banished from antiquities likewise? The often-quoted passage also of Valerius Maximus, viii. 7, 5, proves nothing, unless we first adopt the amendment of Green. Carneades, it is said, was so engaged in the study of philosophy, that he would have forgot his meals had not Melissa put him in mind of them. Green reads _monitrix domestica_; but Valerius says, “Melissa, quam uxoris loco habebat.” See Sallengre, Thes. Antiq. Rom. i. p. 721. A passage likewise in Pliny’s Epistles, iii. 1, p. 181, “ubi hora balinei nunciata est,” does not properly prove that it alludes to one of those boys who announced the hours. That such servants however were kept, is evident from the undoubted testimony of various authors. Martial, viii. ep. 67.--Juven. Sat. x. 216.--Seneca De Brevit. Vitæ, c. 12.--Alciphron, Epist. lib. iii. p. 282.--Sidon. Apollin. ii. ep. 9, p. 120. [460] Cic. Orat. pro Muræna, cap. 22. [461] Sil. Ital. vii. 155. [462] Traité de la Police, vol. i. in the Index under the word _Guet_. [463] _Bivouac_, from the German _beiwacht_, is an additional night-guard during a siege, or when an army is encamped near the enemy. _Lansquenets_ were German soldiers added by Charles VIII. of France to his infantry, and who were continued in the French army till Francis I. introduced his legions.--TRANS. [464] [With respect to the institution of night-watch in this country, Stow says, “For a full remedy of enormities in the night, I read, that in the year 1253 Henry III. commanded watches in the cities and borough towns to be kept, for the better observing of peace and quietness among his people.... And further, by the advice of them of Savoy, he ordained, that if any man chanced to be robbed, or by any means damnified by any thief or robber, he to whom the charge of keeping that country, city, or borough, chiefly appertained, where the robbery was done, should competently restore the loss. And this was after the use of Savoy, but yet thought more hard to be observed here than in those parts; and therefore, leaving those laborious watches, I will speak of our pleasures and pastimes in watching by night.” (Survey of London, Thoms’s edition, 1842, p. 39.) He then describes the marching watches which were instituted in the months of June and July, on the vigils and evenings of festival days; with the cresset lights, &c. But he does not state whether these watches were continued in his time; nor does he state the author of the information which he gives us from his reading. The statute of Winchester, 13 Edward I. c. 4, enforces a continuation of the watches as they had previously been made, from Ascension-day to Michaelmas-day; the night-watch from sun-set to sunrise, in every city by six men at each gate, in every borough by twelve men, in every open town by six or four men.] [465] Nicolai Beschreib. von Berlin, i, p. 38. [466] Ib. p. 49. [467] Iter Germanicum. Hamburgi, 1717, 8vo, p. 26. [468] Lipsius De Milit. Rom. iv. 10, p. 198.--Bochart. Hierozoic. i. [469] From the name of this instrument, called in some places of Germany a _ratel_, arose the appellation of _ratelwache_, which was established at Hamburg in 1671. In the Dutch language the words _ratel_, _ratelaar_, _ratelen_, _ratelmann_, _ratelwagter_ (a night-watchman), are quite common. [470] Stanihurst De Rebus in Hibernia Gestis, lib. i. p. 33. [471] Leges Walliæ. Lond. 1730, fol. [472] The person whose turn it was to watch at the gates, was obliged to perform the duty himself, or to cause it to be performed by a fit and proper young citizen. Those who attended to trade and neglected the watch, paid for every omission one mark to the council. The case was the same with the watch on the tower in the market-place. [473] In the Berlin police ordinance of the year 1580, it was ordered that the _Raths-thurn oder Hausmann_, steeple-watchman or city-musician, should attend at weddings with music for the accustomed pay, but only till the hour of nine at night, in order that he might then blow his horn on the steeple, and place the night-watch. [474] Martini Atlas Sinens. p. 17. Matches or links, to which alarums are sometimes added, are employed in China to point out the hours; and these are announced by watchmen placed on towers who beat a drum. See Kæmpfer’s Japan, where the mention of matches is omitted. Thunberg says, “Time is measured here not by clocks or hour-glasses, but by burning matches, which are plaited like ropes, and have knots on them. When the match burns to a knot, which marks a particular lapse of time, the hour is announced, during the day, by a certain number of strokes on the bells in the temples; and in the night by watchmen who go round and give a like signal with two pieces of board, which they knock against each other.” [475] A great deal of important information, which is as yet too little known, has been collected on this subject by Reiske, on Constantini Lib. de Ceremoniis Aulæ Byzant. ii. p. 74. [476] This is related in the Oettingisches Geschichts-almanach, p. 7, on the authority of an account in the parish books of Oettingen, said to be extracted from an ancient chronicle of that town. The author of this almanac, which is now little known, was, as I have been told, Schablen, superintendant at Oettingen. PLANT-SKELETONS. Plants, as well as animals, are organised bodies, and like them their parts may be dissected and decomposed by art; but the anatomy of the former has not been cultivated so long and with so much zeal and success as that of animals. Some naturalists, about the beginning of the last century, first began to make it an object of attention, to compare the structure of plants with that of animals; and for that purpose to employ the microscope. Among these, two distinguished themselves in a particular manner; Marcellus Malpighi, an Italian; and Nehemiah Grew, an Englishman; who both undertook almost the same experiments and made them known at the same time; so that it is impossible to determine which of them was the earlier. It appears, however, that Grew published some of his observations a little sooner; but Malpighi was prior in making his known in a complete manner. But even allowing that the one had received hints of the processes of the other, they are both entitled to praise that each made experiments of his own, and from these prepared figures, which are always more correct the nearer they correspond with each other. Among the various helps towards acquiring a knowledge of the anatomy of plants, one of the principal is the art of reducing to skeletons leaves, fruit and roots; that is, of freeing them from their soft, tender and pulpy substance, in such a manner, that one can survey alone their internal, harder vessels in their entire connexion. This may be done by exposing the leaves to decay for some time soaked in water, by which means the softer parts will be dissolved, or at least separated from the internal harder parts, so that one, by carefully wiping, pressing and rinsing them, can obtain the latter alone perfectly entire. One will possess then a tissue composed of innumerable woody threads or filaments, which, in a multiplicity of ways, run through and intersect each other. By sufficient practice and caution one may detach, from each side of a leaf, a very thin covering, between which lies a delicate web of exceedingly tender vessels. These form a woody net-work, between the meshes of which fine glandules are distributed. This net is double, or at least can be divided lengthwise into halves, between which may be observed a substance that appears as it were to be the marrow of the plant. Persons who are expert often succeed so far, with many leaves, as to separate the external covering on both sides from the woody net, and to split the latter into two, so that the whole leaf seems to be divided into four. One might conjecture that this method of reducing leaves to skeletons must have been long known, as one frequently finds in ponds leaves which have dropped from the neighbouring trees, and which by decomposition, without the assistance of art, have been converted into such a woody net-work, quite perfect and entire. It is however certain that a naturalist, about the year 1645, first conceived the idea of employing decomposition for the purpose of making leaf-skeletons, and of assisting it by ingenious operations of art. This naturalist, Marcus Aurelius Severinus, professor of anatomy and surgery at Naples, was born in 1580, and died of the plague in 1656. In his Zootomia Democritæa, printed in 1645, he gave the figure, with a description of a leaf of the _Ficus Opuntia_ reduced to a skeleton. Of the particular process employed to prepare this leaf, the figure of which is very coarse and indistinct, he gives no account. He says only that the soft substance was so dissolved that the vessels or nerves alone remained; and that he had been equally successful with a leaf of the palm-tree. A piece of a leaf of the like kind he sent by Thomas Bartholin to Olaus Wormius, who caused it to be engraved on copper, in a much neater manner, without saying anything of the method in which it had been prepared[477]. The process Severin kept secret; but he communicated it to Bartholin, in a letter, on the 25th of February 1645, on condition that he would not disclose it to any one. At that period, however, it excited very little attention, and was soon forgotten, though in the year 1685 one Gabriel Clauder made known that he had reduced vine-leaves, the calyx of the winter cherry, and a root of hemlock, to a net or tissue by burying them in sand during the heat of summer, and hanging them up some months in the open air till they were completely dried. This art was considered to be of much more importance when it was again revived by the well-known Dutchman, Frederick Ruysch. That naturalist found means to conduct all his undertakings and labours in such a manner as to excite great wonder; but we must allow him the merit of having brought the greater part of them to a degree of perfection which no one had attained before. By the anatomy of animals, in which he was eminently skilled, he was led to the dissection of plants; and as it seemed impossible to fill their tender vessels, like those of animals, with a coloured solid substance[478], he fell upon a method of separating the hard parts from the soft, and of preserving them in that manner. For this purpose he first tried a method which he had employed with uncommon success, in regard to the parts of animals. He covered the leaves and fruit with insects, which ate up the soft or pulpy parts, and left only those that were hard. But however well these insects, which he called his little assistants, may have executed their task, they did not abstain altogether from the solid parts, so that they never produced a complete skeleton. He dismissed them, therefore, and endeavoured to execute with his own fingers what he had before caused the insects to perform, after he had separated the soft parts from the hard by decomposition. In this he succeeded so perfectly, that all who saw his skeletons of leaves or fruit were astonished at the fineness of the work and wished to imitate them. I cannot exactly determine the year in which Ruysch began to prepare these skeletons. Trew thinks that it must have been when he was in a very advanced age, or at any rate after the year 1718; for when he was admitted to Ruysch’s collection in that year, he observed none of these curiosities. Rundmann, however, saw some of them in his possession in the year 1708[479]. At first Ruysch endeavoured to keep the process a secret, and to evade giving direct answers to the questions of the curious. We are informed by Rundmann, that he attempted to imitate his art by burying leaves at the end of harvest in the earth, and leaving them there till the spring, by which their soft parts became so tender that he could strip them off with the greatest ease. He produced also the same effect by boiling them. The first account which Ruysch himself published of his process, was, as far as I know, in the year 1723. After he had sufficiently excited the general curiosity, he gave figures of some of his vegetable skeletons, related the whole method of preparing them, and acknowledged that he had accidentally met with an imperfect engraving of a leaf-skeleton in the Museum of Wormius, which had at one time occasioned much wonder[480]. It is not improbable that he knew how the Italian, whom he does not mention, though he is mentioned by Wormius, and though he must certainly have been acquainted with his Zootomia, prepared his skeletons. I must however observe, that it is remarked by those who knew Ruysch, that he had read few books, and was very little versed in the literature of his profession. In the year following, Ruysch described more articles of the like kind, and gave figures of some pears prepared in this manner. In 1726, when Vater, professor at Wittenberg, expressed great astonishment at the fineness of his works, he replied, in a letter written in 1727, that he had at first caused them to be executed by insects, but that he then made them himself with his fingers[481]. He repeated the same thing also in 1728, when he described and gave engravings of more of these curious objects[482]. The progress of this invention is related in the same manner by Schreiber, in his Life of Ruysch. When the method of producing these skeletons became publicly known, they were soon prepared by others; some of whom made observations, which were contrary to those of Ruysch. Among these in particular were J. Bapt. Du Hamel, who, so early as the year 1727, described and illustrated with elegant engravings the interior construction of a pear[483]; Trew[484], in whose possession Keysler saw such skeletons in 1730; P. H. G. Mohring[485]; Seba[486]; Francis Nicholls[487], an Englishman; Professor Hollmann[488] at Göttingen, Ludwig[489], Walther[490], Gesner[491] and others. Nicholls seems to have been the first who split the net of an apple- or a pear-tree leaf into two equal parts, though Ruysch split a leaf of the opuntia into three, four, and even five layers, as he himself says. In the year 1748, Seligmann, an engraver, began to publish, in folio plates, figures of several leaves which he had reduced to skeletons[492]. As he thought it impossible to make drawings sufficiently correct, he took impressions from the leaves or nets themselves, with red ink, and in a manner which may be seen described in various books on the arts. Of the greater part he gave two figures, one of the upper and another of the under side. He promised also to give figures of the objects as magnified by a solar microscope; and two plates were to be delivered monthly. Seligmann however died soon after, if I am not mistaken; and a lawsuit took place between his heirs, by which the whole of the copies printed were arrested, and for this reason the work was never completed, and is to be found only in a very few libraries. Cobres says that eight pages of text, with two black and twenty-nine red copper-plates, were completed. The copy which is in the library of our university has only eight pages of text, consisting partly of a preface by C. Trew, and partly of an account of the author, printed in Latin and German opposite to each other. Trew gives a history of the physiology of plants and of leaf-skeletons; and Seligmann treats on the methods of preparing the latter. The number of the plates however is greater than that assigned by Cobres. The copy which is now before me contains thirty-three plates, printed in red; and besides these, two plates in black, with figures of the objects magnified. Of the second plate in red, there is a duplicate with this title, “Leaves of a bergamot pear-tree, the fruit of which is mild;” but the figures in both are not the same; and it appears that the author considered one of the plates as defective, and therefore gave another. The leaves represented in the plates are those of the orange-tree, lemon-tree, shaddock-tree, butcher’s-broom, walnut-tree, pear-tree, laurel, lime-tree, ivy, medlar, chestnut-tree, maple-tree, holly, willow, white hawthorn, &c. I shall take this opportunity of inserting here the history of the art of raising trees from leaves. The first who made this art known was Agostino Mandirola, doctor of theology, an Italian minorite of the Franciscan order. In a small work upon Gardening, which, as I think, was printed for the first time at Vicenza, in duodecimo, in the year 1652, and which was reprinted afterwards in various places, he gave an account of his having produced trees from the leaves of the cedar- and lemon-tree[493]; but he does not relate this circumstance as if he considered it to be a great discovery. On the contrary, he appears rather to think it a matter of very little importance. His book was soon translated into German; and his account copied by other writers, such as Böckler[494] and Hohberg[495], who were at that time much read. A gardener of Augsburg, as we are told by Agricola, was the first who imitated this experiment, and proved the possibility of it to others. He is said to have tried it with good success in the garden of count de Wratislau, ambassador at Ratisbon from the elector of Bohemia. But never was this experiment so often and so successfully repeated as in the garden of baron de Munchhausen, at Swobber. A young tree was obtained there from a leaf of the _Limon a Rivo_, which produced fruit the second year. It was sent to M. Volkamer, at Nuremberg, who caused a drawing to be made from it, which was afterwards engraved, in order that it might be published in the third volume of his Hesperides; but as the author died too early, it was not printed. The exact drawing, as it was then executed at Nuremberg, and an account of the whole process employed in the experiment at Swobber, have been published by the baron de Munchhausen himself, from authentic papers in his grandfather’s own writing[496]. No one, however, excited so much attention to this circumstance as the well-known George Andrew Agricola, physician at Ratisbon, who, with that confidence and prolixity which were peculiar to him, ventured to assert that trees could be propagated in the speediest manner by planting the leaves, after being steeped in a liquor which he had invented; and for the truth of his assertion he referred to his own experiments[497]. Among the naturalists of that period none took more trouble to examine the possibility of this effect than Thummig[498], who endeavoured to prove that not only leaves with eyes left to them, could, in well-moistened earth, throw out roots which would produce a stem, but that leaves also without eyes would grow up to be trees. Baron Munchhausen, on the other hand, assures us, that according to the many experiments made in his garden, one can only expect young plants from the leaves of those trees which do not bring forth buds; that experiments made with the leaves of the lemon-tree had alone succeeded, but never those made with the leaves of the orange- or lime-tree; and that Agricola and Thummig had erroneously imagined that the leaves themselves shot up into trees, their middle fibre (_rachis_) becoming the stem, and the collateral fibres the branches. But the leaf decays as soon as it has resigned all its sap to the young tree, which is springing up below it. To conclude: It is probable that the well-known multiplication of the Indian fig, or _Opuntia_, gave the first idea of this experiment; for every joint of that plant, stuck into the earth, and properly nurtured, throws out roots and grows. As these joints were commonly considered to be leaves, people tried whether other leaves would not grow in the like manner. Luckily, those of the lemon-tree were chosen for this purpose; and what was expected took place. Thus from a false hypothesis have new truths often been derived; and thus was Kepler, by a false and even improbable opinion, led to an assertion, afterwards confirmed, that the periodical revolutions of the planets were in proportion to their distance from the sun. But the raising of trees from leaves was too rashly declared to be a method that might be generally employed; for it is certain that it now seldom succeeds. [Beckmann certainly overrates the value of these plant-skeletons in assisting the acquirement of a knowledge of the anatomy of plants. By macerating plants in water, all but the woody fibres are decomposed by the putrefactive fermentation which ensues. From an examination of these, a knowledge of structure merely is attainable, which may be now truly said to be thoroughly understood. It gives us no insight into its functions. The modern microscope has revealed to us the structure of all the components of vegetable tissues, and has most materially assisted in developing the functions of several; many, however, remain in the hands of the physiologist. Nevertheless, these plant-skeletons exhibit the true course and arrangement of the woody fibres, and form most beautiful objects. The leaves are not the only parts which can be thus prepared; the petals of many plants are even more delicate and beautiful in their ligneous structure, as evidenced in the hydrangea and several others. Their preparation is exceedingly simple, but tedious, and can only be well effected by maceration in water, which frequently requires to be considerably prolonged. The pulpy half-decomposed portions are gradually removed by a camel-hair pencil, or other means, with great delicacy and care; they are finally washed and bleached, if necessary, with chloride of lime or soda. By washing in considerably diluted muriatic acid and water, all traces of this reagent are removed; they are then dried, and will keep for an indefinite period.] FOOTNOTES [477] Museum Wormianum. Lugd. Bat. 1655, fol. p. 149. [478] The well-known Sir John Hill, an Englishman, has proved, however, in later times, the possibility of injecting a substance into the vessels of plants also. He dissolved sugar of lead in water, suspended in it bits of the finest wood, so that one-half of them was under water and the other above it, and covered the vessel in which they were placed with an inverted glass. At the end of two days he took the bits of wood out, cut off the parts which had been immersed in the water, dipped them in a warm lye made of unslaked lime and orpiment, like what was used formerly for proving wine; and by these means the finest vessels, which had been before filled with sugar of lead, acquired a dark colour, and their apertures became much more distinct. This process he describes himself in his work on the Construction of Timber. [479] Rariora Naturæ et Artis. Breslau and Leipsic, 1737, fol. p. 421. [480] Adversariorum decas iii. in Ruyschii Opera Omnia Anat. Med. [481] A. Vateri Epist. ad Ruyschium de Musculo Orbiculari, 1727. Of employing different kinds of insects, particularly the _dermestes_, as they are called, for reducing animal and vegetable bodies to skeletons, Hebenstreit has treated in Program. de Vermibus Anatomicorum administris. Lips. 1741. Figures of the insects and of some of their preparations are added. [482] Acta Eruditorum, 1729, Febr. p. 63. [483] Mémoires de l’Acad. des Sciences, ann. 1730, 1731, 1732. [484] Commerc. Litter. Norim. 1732, p. 73. [485] Ib. [486] Phil. Transact. 1730, ccccxvi. p. 441. [487] Ib. ccccxiv. p. 371. [488] Ib. cccclxi. p. 789, and cccclxiii. p. 796.--Commerc. Litter. Norimb. 1735, p. 353. [489] Institutiones Regni Vegetabil. In the part on Leaves. [490] Programma de Plantarum Structura. Lips. 1740, 4to, § 5, 6. [491] Dissertat. Phys. de Vegetabilibus, printed with Linnæi Orat. de Necessitate Peregrinat. intra Patriam. Lugd. B. 1743. [492] Die Nahrungs-Gefässe in den Blättern der Bäume. Nurnb. 1748. [493] Many editions of this book may be found mentioned in Halleri Bibl. Botan. i. p. 484; Böhmeri Bibl. Hist. Nat. iii. p. 679. [494] Haus- und Feld-Schule, i. 26. [495] Georgica Curiosa, i. p. 787. [496] Hausvater, vol. v. p. 662. [497] Versuch der Universal-vermehrung aller Bäume. Regensb. 1716, fol., or the edition by Brauser. Regensb. 1772. [498] Thummigii Meletemata. Brunsw. 1727, 8vo, p. 5. BILLS OF EXCHANGE. I shall not here repeat what has been collected by many learned men respecting the important history of this noble invention, but only lay before my readers an ordinance of the year 1394, concerning the acceptance of bills of exchange, and also two bills of the year 1404, as they may serve to illustrate further what has been before said on the subject by others. These documents are, indeed, more modern than those found by Raphael de Turre[499] in the writings of the jurist Baldus[500], which are dated March 9, 1328; but they are attended with such circumstances as sufficiently prove that the method of transacting business by bills of exchange was fully established so early as the fourteenth century; and that the present form and terms were even then used. For this important information I am indebted to Von Martens, who found it in a History, written in Spanish, of the maritime trade and other branches of commerce at Barcelona, taken entirely from the archives of that city, and accompanied with documents from the same source, which abound with matter highly interesting[501]. Among these is an ordinance issued by the city of Barcelona in the year 1394, that bills of exchange should be accepted within twenty-four hours after they were presented; and that the acceptance should be written on the back of the bill[502]. In the year 1404, the magistrates of Bruges, in Flanders, requested the magistrates of Barcelona to inform them what was the common practice, in regard to bills of exchange, when the person who presented a bill raised money on it in an unusual manner, in the case of its not being paid, and by these means increased the expenses so much that the drawer would not consent to sustain the loss. The bill which gave occasion to this question is inserted in the memorial. It is written in the short form still used, which certainly seems to imply great antiquity. It speaks of usance; and it appears that first and second bills were at that time drawn, and that when bills were not accepted, it was customary to protest them. [It may not, perhaps, be uninteresting to the reader to give a short account of the present mode of conducting transactions of bills of exchange; this we condense from Waterston’s Encyclopædia of Commerce, which contains the most recent and practical account. The individual who issues the bill is called the drawer, the person to whom it is addressed the drawee, until he consent to honour the draft or obey the order or bill, by writing his name on the face of it, after which he is called the acceptor. The bill may be passed from hand to hand by delivery or _indorsation_, and in the latter case the person who makes over is called the indorser, and the person who receives the indorsee. The indorser commonly puts his name on the back, with or without a direction to pay to a particular person. He who is in legal possession of the bill and the obligation contained in it, is called the holder or the payee. There is no particular form for a bill of exchange required by law, further than that the mandate to pay in money be distinct, and the person who is to pay, the person who is to receive, and the time of payment shall be ascertainable beyond a doubt. By special statute in England, all bills under 20_s._ are void; and those between that sum and £5 must be made payable within twenty-one days after date, contain the name and description of the payee, and bear date at the time of making. Bills of exchange must be on a proper stamp. Bills, though they are of the nature of a “chose in action,” which is not strictly assignable, may be transferred from hand to hand or negociated. To allow of this, there must be negotiable words, as “or order” or “bearer.” The various parties upon a bill, besides the acceptors, indorsers, drawers and others, become liable for its payment on failure of the acceptor. Bills of exchange cease in England to be documents of debt on the expiration of six years from the time named for payment. In foreign bills, the term “usance” is sometimes employed to express the period of running in foreign bills. It means a certain time fixed by custom, as between any two places. An usance between this kingdom and Rotterdam, Hamburg, Altona, or Paris, or any place in France, is _one_ calendar month from the date of the bill; an usance between us and Cadiz, Madrid or Bilboa, _two_; an usance between us and Leghorn, Genoa, or Venice, _three_.] FOOTNOTES [499] Disp. i. quæst. 4. n. 23. [500] Consil. 348. [501] Memorias Historicas sobre la Marina Commercio, etc. de Barcelona, por D. Ant. de Capmany. Madrid, 1779, 2 vols. 4to. The following important articles will be found in this work:--A custom-house tariff, written in Latin, of the year 1221, in which occur a great number of remarkable names and articles of merchandise not explained. Another of the like kind, of the year 1252. Letters of power to appoint consuls in distant countries, such as Syria, Egypt, &c., dated in the years 1266, 1268, and 1321. An ordinance of the year 1458, respecting insurance, which required that under-writing should be done in the presence of a notary, and declared _polices o scriptures privades_ to be null and void. A _privilegium_ of the emperor Andronicus II. to the merchants of Barcelona, written in Greek and Spanish, in 1290. Account of the oldest Spanish trade with wool, silk, salt, and saffron; and of the oldest guilds or incorporated societies of tradesmen at Barcelona, &c. [502] Vol. ii. p. 382. TIN. TINNING. It is generally believed that the metal called at present tin was known and employed in the arts, not only in the time of Pliny, but as early as that of Herodotus, Homer, and Moses. This I will not venture to deny; but I can only admit that it is probable, or that the great antiquity of this metal cannot be so fully proved as that of gold, silver, copper, iron, lead, and quicksilver. Tin is one of those minerals which hitherto have been found in quantity only in a few countries, none of which ever belonged to the Greeks or the Romans[503], or were visited, at an early period, by their merchants. As it never occurs in a native state[504], the discovery of it supposes some accident more extraordinary than that of those metals which are commonly, or at any rate, often found native. I cannot, however, attach much importance to this circumstance, as the ancients became acquainted with iron at an early period, though not so early as with copper. I must also admit that tin might have been more easily discovered, because it is frequently found near the surface of the earth; does not require a strong heat or artificial apparatus for fusing it, and therefore can be more easily won than copper. But if tin was known so early as has hitherto been believed, it must, on account of the circumstance here first remarked, have been scarce and therefore exceedingly dear. In this manner the aurichalcum or Corinthian brass, according to the expression of Plautus, was “auro contra carum.” The metal of the ancients, however, which is believed to have been tin, was not so rare and costly. Vessels of it are not often mentioned, in general; but they never occur among valuable articles. The circumstance also, that vessels of tin have never or very seldom been found among Greek or Roman antiquities, and that when discovered the nature of the metal has been very doubtful, though tin is not apt to change from the action of the air, water, or earth, and at any rate far surpasses in durability copper and lead, ancient articles made of which are frequently found, appears to me worthy of attention. It possesses also so many excellent properties, that it might be expected that the people of every age, to whom it was known, would have employed it in a great variety of ways. It recommends itself by its superior silvery colour; its ready fusion; the ease with which it can be hammered and twisted; its lightness, and its durability. It is not soon tarnished; it is still less liable to rust or to become oxidized; it retains its splendour a long time, and when it is lost easily recovers it again. It is not so soon attacked by salts as many other metals; and this till lately has been considered a proof of its being less pernicious than it possibly may be. After an accurate investigation, should everything said by the ancients of their supposed tin be as applicable to a metallic mixture as to our tin, my assertion, that it is probable, but by no means certain, that the ancients were acquainted with our tin, will be fully justified. The oldest mention of this metal, as generally believed, is to be found in the sacred scriptures. In the book of Numbers, chap. xxxi. ver. 22, Moses seems to name all the metals then known; and, besides gold, silver, brass (properly copper), iron, and lead, he mentions also _bedil_, which all commentators and dictionaries make to be tin. When Ezekiel, chap. xxvii. ver. 12, gives an account of the commerce of Tyre, he names, among the commodities, silver, iron, copper, and _bedil_. In Zechariah, chap. iv. ver. 10, the plummet of the builder or architect is said to be made of the _bedil_ stone. In Isaiah, chap. i. ver. 25, the word occurs in the plural number, and appears there to denote either scoriæ, or all those inferior metallic substances which must be separated from the noble metals. In the old Greek versions of these Hebrew books, _bedil_ is always translated by _cassiteros_, except in the passage of Isaiah, where no metal is mentioned. In Zechariah, the translator calls the _bedil_ stone τὸν λίθον κασσιτέρινον. There can hardly be a doubt, that for the purpose here mentioned, people would employ, not the lighter metal tin, but lead, and that the plummet was called the lead-stone, because at first a stone was used. It seems, however, probable that in the first-quoted passage _bedil_ is our tin; but must it not appear astonishing that the Midianites, in the time of Moses, should have possessed this metal? Is it not possible that the Hebrew word denoted a metallic mixture or artificial metal, which formerly was an article of commerce, as our brass is at present[505]? The Greek translators considered _bedil_ to be what they called _cassiteros_; and as the moderns translated this by _stannum_, these words have thus found their way into the Latin, German, and other versions of the Hebrew scriptures, which therefore can contribute very little towards the history of this metal. The examination of the word _cassiteros_ would be of more importance; but before I proceed to it, I shall make some observations on what the ancients called _stannum_. This, at present, is the general name of our tin; and from it seem to be formed the _estain_ of the French, the _tin_ of the Low German and English, and the _zinn_ of the High German. It can, however, be fully proved that the _stannum_ of the ancients was no peculiar metal; at any rate not our tin, but rather a mixture of two other metals, which, like our brass, was made into various articles and employed for different purposes, on which account a great trade was carried on with it. This, at least, may with great certainty be concluded from a well-known passage of Pliny[506]; though to us, because we are not fully acquainted with the metallurgic operations of the ancients, it is not sufficiently intelligible. What I have been able to collect, however, towards illustrating the passage, with the assistance of my predecessors, and by comparing myself the account of the Roman with our works, I shall here lay before the reader; and perhaps it may induce others to improve and enlarge it. But I must first observe, that there can be no doubt that the _nigrum plumbum_ of the ancients was our lead. This metal, according to Pliny’s account, they obtained in two ways. First, from their own lead mines or lead ore, which immediately on its fusion gave pure or saleable lead. To comprehend this, it is necessary to know that most kinds of lead ore contain also silver, and many of them in such quantity that they might with more propriety be called silver ores, or rather argentiferous lead ores or plumbiferous silver ores. Those which contain no silver are so scarce, that I am ignorant whether any other has yet been found, except that of Bleyberg, not far from Villach, in Carinthia. As Villach lead, according to some experiments made on a large scale, is entirely free from silver, it is well-known, and particularly useful for assaying. It may therefore appear singular that the ancients had lead of this kind in such abundance that Pliny was able to make of it a particular division. But it is to be observed, that in ancient times people paid little attention to a small admixture of silver; and that they were accustomed to separate this metal only when it was capable, by the old imperfect process of smelting, to defray the expenses, which certainly would not be the case, when a quintal of ore contained only a few ounces, or even a pound of silver. Strabo says this expressly of some Spanish ores. Such poor ores were then used merely for lead; and our silver refiners, without doubt, would separate silver with considerable advantage from the lead of the ancients. Hence has arisen the common opinion, that lead and also copper, with which some of the oldest buildings are covered, had in the course of time become argentiferous. This is impossible; but it is possible for us to separate from them the noble metal, which the ancients either could not do, or did not think it worth the trouble to attempt. Secondly, the ancients obtained, as we do, a great deal of lead from argentiferous ores, from which they separated the silver and revived the lead. The ore was pounded very fine, or, as we say, stamped; it was then washed and roasted, and formed into a powder or paste. This was then put into the furnace, and by the first fusion gave a regulus consisting of silver and lead, which was called _stannum_, and was the same substance as that known to our metallurgists by the name of _werk_. If it was required to separate the silver, it was again fused, not in the first furnace, but in a particular refining furnace with a hearth of lixiviated ashes. This circumstance Pliny has not mentioned; perhaps it appeared to him unnecessary; perhaps he did not fully understand every part of the process; and were one inclined to say anything in his defence, modern travels and other works might be quoted, in which metallurgic operations are described in a manner no less imperfect. The produce obtained by the second fusion, called in German _treiben_ or _abtreiben_, was silver, and besides that half-vitrified lead, _glätte_, which in part falls into the hearth. This substance, called by Pliny _galena_, a word which denotes also _molybdæna_[507], was once more fused or revived, and then gave lead. In this manner were obtained three different productions, which were all used in commerce, namely, _stannum_, _argentum_ and _galena_, or revived lead, _plumbum nigrum_. These Pliny seems to have considered as component parts of lead ore; but not indeed according to the present signification[508]. Though it must be confessed that this passage of Pliny cannot be fully understood by any explanation, it proves to conviction that the _stannum_ of the ancients was neither our tin nor a peculiar metal, but the _werk_ of our smelting-houses. This was long ago remarked by those writers who were acquainted with metallurgy, of whom I shall here mention Agricola[509], Encelius[510], Fallopius[511], Savot[512], Bernia[513], and Jung[514]. The ancients used, as a peculiar metal, a mixture of gold and silver, because they were not acquainted with the art of separating them, and afterwards gave it the name of _electrum_. In the like manner they employed _werk_ or _stannum_, which was obtained almost in the same manner in the fusion of silver. In all probability it was employed before people became acquainted with the art of separating these two metals, and continued in use through habit, even after a method of separating them was discovered. If the ore subjected to fusion was abundant in silver, this mixture approached near to the noble metals; if poor in silver, it consisted chiefly of lead. When it consisted of silver and lead only, it was soft and ductile; but if other metals, difficult of fusion, such as copper, iron, or zinc, were intermixed, it was harder and more brittle, and in that case approached nearer to what the German silver refiners call _abzug_ and _abstrich_. That this _stannum_ was employed as an article of commerce, and that the ancients made of it vessels of various kinds, cannot be doubted. The _vasa stannea_ however may be considered as vessels which were covered with tin only in the inside; for that this was customary I shall prove hereafter. In general, these _vasa stannea_ are named where mention is made of saline or oily things, or such as would readily acquire a taste and smell from other metals, were they boiled or preserved in them for any length of time[515]. It has been long ago remarked that most of the Roman vessels were made of copper, and that these people were acquainted with the art of tinning or silvering them; but that tinned vessels have never been found, and silvered ones very rarely. Hence so many things appear to have been made of what is called _bronze_, which is less liable to acquire that dangerous rust or oxide, known under the name of verdigris, than pure copper. This bronze is sometimes given out as Corinthian and sometimes Syracusan brass, as the gold-coloured coins of the first size were considered to be Corinthian brass also. But in my opinion, a great and perhaps the greater part of all these things were made of _stannum_, properly so called, which by the admixture of the noble metals, and some difficult of fusion, was rendered fitter for use than pure copper. We are told by Suetonius, that the emperor Vitellius took away all the gold and silver from the temples and substituted in their stead _aurichalcum_ and _stannum_[516]. Whether the Greeks worked _stannum_, and under what name, I do not know: perhaps we ought to class here the κασσιτέρινα of the oldest times, of which I shall speak hereafter. What I have already said in regard to _werk_ will be rendered more certain by the circumstance, that even two centuries ago, vessels of all kinds called _halbwerk_ were made of it in Germany. This we are told by Encelius[517] as a thing well-known in his time, which however I should wish to see further examined. I have searched in vain for this name in a great many works of the sixteenth century; but I have long entertained an idea, which I shall take this opportunity of mentioning:--Among the oldest church vessels I have seen some articles which I considered to be _vasa stannea_, I mean such as when newly scoured and polished had a silvery brightness, and when they remained long without being cleaned acquired a dull gray colour, and a greater weight than bronze. Those who show these things commonly say that the method of composing the metal is lost; but that it contains silver, and according to the assertion of many, even gold. Such articles deserve, undoubtedly, to be examined by our chemists. I shall further remark, on this subject, that the _abstrich_, as it is called, which in many respects has a resemblance to _stannum_, and contains also lead and silver, but at the same time metals difficult of fusion, is employed in the arts, and collected for the use of the letter-founders[518]. For this purpose it is well-adapted, on account of its hardness and durability; and in want of it lead must be mixed with regulus of antimony. At the Lower Harze the workmen began so early as 1688 to revive this _abstrich_ in particular; and as the lead thence obtained, on account of its hardness, could not be disposed of like common lead, it was sold to the letter-founders at Brunswick, at first at the rate of a hundred weight for two and a half dollars, and in the year 1689 for three dollars. But in Schlüter’s time a small quantity of it only was made annually, because the _abstrich_ could be used with more advantage for other purposes. This lead, says Schlüter, had the appearance of bronze, and was so brittle, that a piece of it broke into fragments when struck[519]. _Speise_ also, which is obtained at the blue colour-works, can be employed in the same manner. Under this term is understood a metallic mixture deposited during the preparation of blue glass, and which is composed of various metals combined with cobalt, but particularly nickel, iron, copper, arsenic, and perhaps also bismuth. It is hard, brittle, sonorous, and assumes a good polish, though it is not always of the same quality in all manufactories. As it contains some colouring particles, it is in general again added to the glass residuum. But when I lately paid a visit to the colour-mill at Carlshafen, M. Birnstein the inspector told me, that the _speise_ was manufactured at Halle into buttons of every kind. This probably is the case there in those button-manufactories established by G. H. Schier, in which buttons of all patterns are made annually to the value of 30,000 dollars[520]. The ancients, in my opinion, employed in a similar manner the _werk_ of their silver smelting-houses. I shall now proceed to examine that metal which the Greeks named κασσίτερος, or, as Pliny says, _Cassiteron_, and which he expressly adds was called by the Latins _plumbum candidum_ (white lead). I have no new hypothesis to recommend; my sole object is truth. I wish for certainty, and, when that is not to be obtained, probability; at the same time, however, I cannot rest satisfied with the judgement given by the compilers of dictionaries, and the translators and commentators of ancient authors, because I firmly believe that they never made any researches themselves on the subject. That the ancients were acquainted with our tin as early as we find the word _cassiteros_ mentioned by them, I am not able to prove, and I doubt whether it is possible to do so; the contrary seems to me to be more probable. In my opinion, it was impossible for the Phœnicians, at so early a period, to obtain this metal from Portugal, Spain, and England, in such quantity that it could be spread all over the old world. The carriage of merchandise was not then so easy. If all the _cassiteron_ was procured from the north-west parts of Europe, it appears to me that it must have been much dearer than it seems to have been in the oldest times, to judge from the information that has been preserved. In my opinion, the oldest _cassiteron_ was nothing else than the _stannum_ of the Romans, the _werk_ of our smelting-houses, that is, a mixture of lead, silver, and some other accidental metals. That this has not been expressly remarked by any Greek writer, is to me not at all surprising. The works of those who might be supposed to have possessed knowledge of this kind have not been handed down to us. We should not have known what _stannum_ was, had not the only passage of Pliny which informs us been preserved. I am as little surprised that Herodotus should say he did not know where _cassiteron_ was obtained. How many modern historians are ignorant of the place from which zinc, bismuth, and tombac are brought! and however easy it might be for our historians to acquire knowledge of this kind if they chose, it was in the same degree difficult for Herodotus, in whose time there were not works on mineralogy, technology, and commerce, to furnish such information. At the period when he lived, _cassiteron_ perhaps was no metallurgic production of any neighbouring mines, but a foreign commodity, a knowledge of which, mercantile people endeavoured in those early ages, much more than is the case in modern times, to conceal, and which also could be better concealed than at present. That real tin was afterwards known to the Greeks, I readily believe; but I find no proof of it, nor can I determine the time at which they first became acquainted with this metal. It is not improbable that they considered it only as a variety of their old _cassiteron_, or the _stannum_ of the Romans, as the latter declared both to be a variety of lead. It might be expected that the Greeks would have given a peculiar name to the new tin, in order to distinguish it from the old, as the Romans really did; but this appears not to have been the case. I think, however, to have remarked that, so early as the time of Aristotle, real foreign tin was called the Tyrian or Celtic, because Tyre undoubtedly was, at that period, the market for this commodity. According to the conjectural accounts hitherto given, there is no necessity for believing the word _cassiteron_ to be Phœnician or Celtic. The Greeks seem to have used it before they had Phœnician tin; and because they afterwards considered the Phœnician ware as a kind of their _cassiteron_, and at the same time heard of islands from which it was brought, they named these islands the _Cassiterian_, as Herodotus has done, though he expressly says that he did not know where they were situated. This ancient historian seems to have entertained nearly the same opinion in regard to the origin of the name, for he adds, “At any rate the name Eridanus is not foreign, but originally Greek[521].” It is, however, very possible that every thing said of these islands, in the time of Herodotus, was merely a fabrication of the Greek merchants, none of whom had the least knowledge of the Phœnician trade to England[522]. In this case the _bedil_ of the Hebrews might be only _stannum_, and thus would be removed the wonder of Michaelis, how the Midianites could have obtained tin so early[523]. I will not, however, deny that the contrary of what has been here stated is equally possible. The Greeks might have obtained real tin at a very early period by trade, and along with it the foreign name, from which was formed _cassiteros_. The art of preparing _stannum_ may not have been known among them, and therefore under the _cassiteron_ of the Greeks we must undoubtedly understand tin. In this case one could comprehend why _stannum_ is not mentioned in the works of the Greeks; and if the _plumbum album_ of Pliny be our tin, of which there can be scarcely a doubt, his testimony that the _cassiteron_ of Homer was the same belongs to this place. In regard to the question, which opinion seems the most probable, I will not enter into any dispute; but I must maintain that, in regard to the periods of Homer and Herodotus, no certainty can be obtained. To justify this assertion, I shall here point out everything I have found relating to _cassiteron_, and, as far as possible, in the original words, quoting the different works in the manner in which all the words for dictionaries of natural history ought to be arranged. I. Vocatur Latinis _plumbum candidum_[a] sive _album_[a][b], et Græcis jam Iliacis temporibus teste Homero _cassiteron_[a]. II. _Mineræ_ (calculi) coloris nigri, quibus eadem gravitas quæ auro[a]. III. Non nascitur cum argento, quod ex nigro fit[a]. IV. Nascitur summa tellure arenosa[a]; sed etiam ex profunda effoditur[h]. V. Arenæ istæ lavantur a metallicis, conflatæque in album plumbum resolvuntur[a]. VI. Plumbum candidum est pretiosius nigro[a]. VII. Facile in igne fluit, ita ut plumbi albi experimentum in charta sit, ut liquefactum pondere videatur, non calore rupisse[a][c]. _Celticum_ citius quam plumbum fluit, atque adeo in aqua; colore inficit, quæcunque tangat[c]. VIII. Nulli rei sine mixtura utile[a]. IX. Adulteratur plumbo nigro[d]. X. Stannum adulteratur addita æris candidi tertia portione in plumbum album[a]. XI. Incoquitur æris operibus, Galliarum invento, ita ut vix discerni possit ab argento, eaque _incoctilia_ vocant[a]. XII. Adhibetur ad ocreas heroum[p]; ad thoraces exornandos[q][r]; ad scuta ornanda[s][t]; ad specula[y]. XIII. Ex eo nummos percussit Dionysius tyrannus Syrac.[u][v]. XIV. Secum jungi nequit sine plumbo nigro, nec plumbum nigrum inter se jungi potest sinealbo[a][x]. XV. Gignitur in _Hispania_[h]; Lusitania[a][h] Gallæcia[a], in Iberia[k][l], apud Artabros[h], in _Britannia_[j]: in insulis quæ Cassiterides dictæ sunt Græcis[e][f][h][k][w], in insula quam Mictim vocat Timæus, et a Britannia sex dierum navigatione abesse refert[g]; in insulis Hesperidibus[m][n][o] apud _Drangas_ populos Persicos regionis Arianæ[i].[524] To this I shall add the following illustration. The name _cassiteron_ is supposed, in general, to be derived from the Phœnician or Chaldaic[525]; but on this point I am not able to decide. Mela, where he explains the name of the Cassiterian islands, calls it only _plumbum_, without the addition of any epithet, unless it has been lost in transcribing. But Pliny himself says[526], “Cassiterides dictæ Græcis a fertilitate plumbi.” It is possible, therefore, that the leaden vessels, which are often mentioned in the works of the ancients, were in part tin; but I cannot possibly agree with Millin[527], who makes the _cyanos_ of Homer to be tin. This word evidently denotes mountain-green, or some species of stone coloured by it, which in former times, like the lapis lazuli at present, was employed for making various kinds of ornaments. Besides, _cyanos_ and _cassiteros_ are mentioned in the Iliad[528] as two different things[529]. What Pliny says of the colour and weight of those minerals that produced tin, corresponds exceedingly well with tin ore, which, as is well known, is among the heaviest of minerals, though the specific gravity of the metal itself is but small. It is also true that lead is seldom found without silver; and tin perhaps has never been found with the latter. What we read in regard to the obtaining of tin ore, agrees very well with our washing-works. Even at present the greater part of the tin ores are found in fragments and washed. The smelting of this metal, even when all the rules of art are not employed, is attended with little difficulty, though Goguet is of a different opinion. As of all metals it melts easiest in the fire, it requires only a small degree of heat and no artificial furnace; but as it is readily calcined, and after repeated reduction loses its malleability, care must be taken that the reduced metal can immediately flow off; and on that account our furnaces have an aperture always kept open. It is probable that the ancients, in their small furnaces, could easily make a similar arrangement. Tin at all times must have been dearer than lead, as the latter was found in abundance, but the former in small quantities. In England at present tin costs about four times as much as lead. At Hamburg, in 1794, a pound of English block tin cost eleven schillings and a half, and tin in bars thirteen schillings; but a hundred pounds of English lead were worth at that time only fourteen marks, and Goslar lead eleven and a half marks ready money. That tin melts easier than lead is very true. According to the latest experiments the former fuses at 442°, whereas lead requires 612° of Fahrenheit’s thermometer. Both metals can be fused in paper when it is closely wrapped round them. Aristotle and Pliny meant to say the same thing of their paper; and the latter adds that the paper, even when it became torn, was not burnt. What the first says of melting in water, some have too inconsiderately declared to be a fable; but it is not entirely false. Tin, when mixed with lead and bismuth in certain proportions, is so fusible that it melts in boiling water, because it requires less heat to be fused than water does to be brought to a state of ebullition. That the Celtic tin contained a great deal of lead, appears from the observation, that when rubbed it made the fingers black; an effect which would not have been produced by pure tin. That tin in the time of Pliny was mixed with lead, and in various proportions, we are told by himself. At that period a mixture of equal parts tin and lead was called _argentarium_; and that of two parts lead and one part tin, _tertiarium_. Others mixed the latter composition with an equal quantity of tin, and named the mixture also _argentarium_, and this was commonly used for tinning. I must, however, acknowledge that the last words of Pliny I do not fully comprehend. They have not indeed been noticed by any commentator; but I do not on that account believe that I am the only person to whom they have been in part unintelligible. Savot and Watson[530], who were undoubtedly capable of giving some decisive opinion on them, have purposely left that part, which to me appears obscure, untranslated and without any explanation. Pliny says, “Improbiores ad tertiarium additis æquis partibus albi, argentarium vocant, et eo quæ volunt, incoquunt.” He seems here to throw out a reproach against those who melted together equal quantities of _tertiarium_ and pure tin, and then gave it the name of _argentarium_, as if it had been of an inferior quality to the _argentarium_ first named. But equal quantities of _tertiarium_ and pure tin produced a mixture, in which for _one_ part of lead there were _two_ of tin. How then could those who made this mixture be called _improbiores_? To answer this question I shall venture to give my conjecture. Pliny perhaps meant to say, that tinning properly ought to be done with pure tin, but that unprincipled artists employed for that purpose tin mixed with lead. If this be the true meaning, his reproach was not unfounded. On the same account, because all tin was then adulterated with lead, Galen gives cautions against the use of tinned vessels, and advises people to preserve medicines rather in glass or in golden vessels. But why does Pliny add, “ideo album nulli rei sine mixtura utile?” In using these words, it is possible he may have alluded, not to tinning, but to things cast of tin, which, according to the ideas of that time or the nature of the tin, if of that metal alone, would be too brittle. This seems to be said by the preceding words, to which the _ideo_ refers: “albi natura plus aridi habet, contraque nigri tota humida est, ideo album....” I hope the reader will forgive me for entering so deeply into criticism; but if Pliny’s valuable work is ever to become intelligible, occasional contributions of this kind must not be despised. Of the process employed in tinning in ancient times, we have no account; but the words of Pliny _incoquere_ and _incoctilia_ seem almost to denote that it was performed, as in tinning our iron wares, by immersing the vessels in melted tin. It appears also to have been done at an early period in a very perfect manner, both because the tinned articles, as Pliny says, could scarcely be distinguished from silver, and because the tinning, as he adds, with an expression of wonder, did not increase the weight of the vessels. The metal, therefore, was applied so thin that it could make no perceptible addition to the weight. This is the case still, when the work has been skilfully executed; and it affords a remarkable proof of the astonishing divisibility of metal. Dr. Watson caused a vessel, the surface of which contained 254 square inches, and which weighed twenty-six ounces, to be tinned, and found that the weight was increased only half an ounce; consequently half an ounce of tin was spread over 254 square inches. But, notwithstanding all this dexterity, which must be allowed to the Romans, they appear to have employed tinning at any rate for kitchen utensils and household furniture very seldom. It is scarcely ever mentioned, and never where one might expect it, that is to say, in works on cookery and domestic œconomy, where the authors give directions for preparing and preserving salt provisions. When they speak of the choice of vessels, they merely say that new earthen ones should be employed. Some of the physicians only have had the foresight to recommend tinned vessels. It does not appear indeed that the Romans, though copper vessels were in general use among them, employed any precautions to prevent them from being injurious to the health. Pliny only says that a coating of _stannum_ improved the taste of food, and guarded against verdigris. The former part is to be thus understood; that the bad taste occasioned by copper was prevented; but he does not say that the health was secured by it. The term also _incoctilia_, usual in the time of Pliny, is found in his works alone. It is likewise remarkable, that among the numerous vessels found at Herculaneum, as I have already remarked, the greater part of them were of copper or _stannum_, few of which were silvered, and none tinned. Had tinning been then as much used as at present, some tinned vessels must have been found. I shall further remark, that Pliny ascribes the invention of tinning to the Gauls; and that he extols in particular the work of the Bituriges, the old inhabitants of the province of Berry, and those articles made at Alexia or Alegia, which is considered to have been Alise in Auxois; that he speaks of tinning copper and not iron, and that according to his account not only tin was used for that purpose, but also _stannum_. By the passages already quoted, it is proved that in the time of Homer _cassiteron_ was employed for ornamenting shields and certain kinds of dresses; but the further illustration of them I shall leave to others. The shields perhaps were inlaid with tin; and it is not improbable that threads were then made of this metal, and used for embroidering. That this art was at that period known may be readily believed, since the women of Lapland embroider their dresses, and particularly their fur cloaks, in so delicate and ingenious a manner, with tin threads drawn out by themselves, as to excite astonishment[531]. What Pliny says is true, that lead cannot be soldered without tin, or tin without lead. For this operation a mixture of both metals, which fuses more readily than each of them singly, is employed. Instead of oil, mentioned by Pliny, workmen use at present in this process colophonium, or some other resin. That vessels were made of cast tin at an early period is highly probable; but I do not remember to have seen any of them in collections of antiquities. I am acquainted only with two instances of their being found, both of which occurred in England. In the beginning of the last century some pieces of tin were discovered in Yorkshire, together with other Roman antiquities[532]; and in 1756 some tin vessels of Roman workmanship with Roman inscriptions were dug up in Cornwall[533]. I shall pass over the history of the tin trade of the Phœnicians, the Greeks, the Gauls and the Romans, respecting which only scanty and doubtful information is to be found in the works of the ancients, but in those of the moderns a greater number of hypotheses. The situation even of the Cassiterides islands cannot with certainty be determined, though it is supposed in general, and not without probability, that they were the Scilly islands, which lie at the distance of about thirty miles from the most western part of the English coast; that is, the extremity of Cornwall, or, as it is called, the Land’s End. At the same time we must adopt the opinion of Ortelius, that under that appellation were included the coasts of Cornwall and Devonshire[534]. To those who are on the Scilly islands, Cornwall, as Borlase remarks, appears to be an island; and as it is impossible that the Scilly islands, which were called also _Silures_, could furnish tin sufficient for the ancient trade, especially as few and very small traces of old works are observed in them, it is more probable that the greater part of the metal was obtained from Cornwall. That the Phœnicians themselves worked mines there, cannot be proved; it is rather to be supposed that they procured the metal from the inhabitants by barter; but, on the other hand, there is reason to believe, from various antiquities, that the Romans dug up the ore themselves from the mine, and had works for extracting the metal. The island Ictis of Diodorus Siculus, to which the ancient Britons carried tin, and from which it was conveyed by the Gallic merchants, is generally considered as the Isle of Wight; but Borlase remarks very properly[535], that Ictis, according to the account of the ancients, must have been much nearer to the coast of Cornwall. He conjectures therefore, and with great probability, that this word was the general appellation of a peninsula, or bay, or a place of depôt for merchandise[536]. If the Mictis of Timæus and the Vectis of Pliny are not this island Ictis, it will be difficult to find them. It is very singular, that Dionysius, a later writer, and his follower Priscian, and Avienus, call the _Cassiterides_ islands the _Hesperides_[537]. That the Drangians had tin mines appears to me highly improbable; Strabo is the only writer who says so, in a few words; and nothing of the kind is to be found in any other author. If Drangiana be considered as a part of Persia, to which that district belongs at present, it is stated by all modern travellers that tin is not to be found anywhere in the Persian empire[538]. If we reckon it a part of India, Pliny asserts that no tin-works were then known in that country. In his time, this metal was sent thither as an article of commerce, and was purchased with precious stones and pearls. This last circumstance has by some been considered as a proof of the high price of the metal at that period; but he says nothing further than that tin was among the imports of India at that time, and that jewels and pearls formed a part of the exports. It may be said that the inhabitants of the Spanish colonies in America gave their silver for our linen, but we cannot thence prove that it bears a high price. That the word _stannum_, in the time of Pliny, did not signify tin but a compounded metal, is as certain as that in later times it became the common name of tin. Hence arises the question, Since what time has our tin been known under the appellation of _stannum_? This question, as far as I know, has never yet been examined; and this, I hope, will be a sufficient excuse if I should not be able to give an answer completely satisfactory. The first author in whom I find the Greek word _cassiteros_ translated by _stannum_ is Avienus, in the free translation of Dionysius; who, as proved by Wernsdorf, lived about the middle of the fourth century. The next who translates the Greek word in the same manner, is Priscian; who, according to the grounds alleged by Wernsdorf, must have lived in the beginning of the sixth century. From what I already know, I suspect that the long and improper name _plumbum candidum_ began in the fourth century to be exchanged for _stannum_; and it is probable that, at that time, tin was so abundant that it banished the old _stannum_, to which it might have a resemblance. In later centuries, then, _stannum_ always signified tin; and in the middle ages various words were arbitrarily formed from it which do not occur in the Latin authors. The _stannea tecta_, or roof of the church at Agen, on the Garonne, in Guienne, described by the ecclesiastical poet Fortunatus[539], about the end of the sixth century, consisted undoubtedly of tinned plates of copper. _Stagnare_ occurs often for tinning, as _stagnator_ does for a tin-founder. In the thirteenth century, Henry III. of England gave as a present a _stagnarium_ or a _stannaria_, a tin mine or tin work, or as others say, _fodina stanni_. In the fourteenth century, there was in England, under Edward III., a _stannaria curia_; and in the same century, besides various other ornaments, _lunulæ stanneatæ_ were forbidden to the clergy. In a catalogue of the year 1379, the following articles occur: “tria parva stanna modici valoris ... item unum stannum parvum ... item duo magna stanna[540].” In regard to the tin trade of the Spaniards, I can unfortunately say nothing: the tin-works in Spain, we are told, were abandoned under the government of the Moors. England, as is generally asserted, enjoyed an exclusive trade in this metal till the thirteenth century, when the tin mines were discovered and worked in Bohemia. But the exact time when this took place I am not able to determine. The Bohemian works, in all probability, are older than the Saxon; but it is still more certain that the account given by Hagec, that they were known so early as the year 798, is entirely void of foundation[541]. When the English writers[542] treat on the history of this metal, they seldom fail to repeat what has been said on the subject by Matthew Paris. This Benedictine monk, who was by birth an Englishman, and died in 1259, relates, in his History of England, that a Cornish-man having fled to Germany, on account of a murder, first discovered tin there in the year 1241. He adds, that the Germans soon after furnished this metal at so cheap a rate, that they could sell it in England, on which the price there fell, very much to the loss of Richard Earl of Cornwall, so well known by his having been elected king of the Romans[543]. Since Matthew relates this as an event which took place in his time, it would perhaps be improper to doubt it; but it still appears strange that no mention is to be found of this circumstance in the Bohemian or German Annals. Gmelin also must not have met with any account of it, else he would have announced it. Peithner likewise is silent respecting it: on the contrary, he says that the tin mines in the neighbourhood of the town of Grauppen were discovered as early as the year 1146, by a peasant named Wnadec, belonging to the village of Chodicze. Of the antiquity of the Saxon mines I can give no account: had any information on that subject existed, it would certainly have been noticed by Gmelin. Brusch, who was murdered by two noblemen in 1559, seems to place the discovery of the tin mines at Schlackenwalde, which he says are younger than those of Schönfeld, in the thirteenth or twelfth century[544]. Albertus Magnus, who died in 1280, says that in his time a great deal of tin was dug up in various parts of Germany. At present the principal tin works are at Geyer, Ehrenfriedersdorf and Altenberg. The art of tinning plate-iron was invented either in Bohemia or Germany, and introduced at a later period into England, France, and other countries. But as the whole history of the German mines is very defective and uncertain, the period when this useful and highly profitable branch of business was begun is not known. Yarranton, an English writer, of whom I shall speak more hereafter, relates that the first tinning of this kind was made in Bohemia; that a Catholic clergyman, who embraced the Lutheran religion, brought the art, about the year 1620, to Saxony, and that since that time all Europe has been furnished with tin-plate from Germany. This much, however, is certain, that the tinning of iron is more modern than the tinning of copper. The first articles made by the bottle-makers were flasks of copper tinned, which in old times were used in war and on journeys, like the _stagnone_, still employed in Spain and Portugal, in which all kinds of distilled waters are sent from Malta[545]. Among the English, who formerly had a monopoly of the tin trade, and who still possess the best and richest tin mines, the introduction of this art of employing their native production did not at first succeed; and this circumstance afforded Becher a subject for raillery[546]. But about the year 1670, a company sent to Saxony, at their expense, an ingenious man named Andrew Yarranton, in order to learn the process of tinning. Having acquired there the necessary knowledge, he returned to England with some German workmen, and manufactured tin-plate, which met with general approbation. Before the company, however, could carry on business on an extensive scale, a man of some distinction, having made himself acquainted with Yarranton’s process, obtained a patent for this art; and the first undertakers were obliged to give up their enterprise, which had cost them a great deal of money, and yet no use was made of the patent which had been obtained[547]. About the year 1720, which, on account of the many new schemes and the deceptive trade carried on in consequence of them, will ever be memorable in the history of English folly, among the many _bubbles_, as they were then called, was an establishment for making tin-plate; and this was one of the few speculations of that period which were attended with advantage. The first manufactory of this kind was established in Monmouthshire, perhaps at the village of Pontypool, where tin-plate was at any rate made so early as 1730[548]. In France, the first experiment to introduce this branch of manufacture was made under Colbert, who procured workmen, some of whom were established at Chenesey, in Franche-Comté, and others at Beaumont-la-Ferriere in the Nivernois. But the want of skill and proper support rendered this expensive undertaking fruitless. Some manufactories, however, were brought to be productive in the last century; the oldest of which was established at Mansvaux in Alsace, in the year 1726. This was followed, in 1733, by another at Bain in Lorraine, which obtained its privilege from Duke Francis III., and this was confirmed by Stanislaus in 1745[549]. That tin, in modern times, has been brought from the East Indies to Europe is well-known; but I have never been so fortunate as to discover when this trade began. It is, however, known, that at the commencement of the sixteenth century a good deal of information had been obtained in Europe in regard to East Indian tin. Louis Barthema, who was then in India, speaks of Malacca tin[550], as does also F. Mendez Pinto, who was there in 1537, and Odoard Barbosa mentions that which was carried from Caranguor to Malacca. Barbosa wrote in 1516[551]. Munster, Mercator, and other old geographers relate, that before the establishment of the Portuguese dominion in India, large tin coins were in circulation in the island of Sumatra. The greater part of the East-Indian tin comes from Siam, Malacca, and Banca. In the last-mentioned place, which is an island near the south-east coast of Sumatra, the mines are said to have been discovered in 1711. In 1776 there were ten pits, which were worked by Chinese, on account of the king of Palimbang. One hundred and twenty-five pounds cost him only five rix dollars; and for this quantity he received from the Dutch East-India company, to whose government he was subject, from thirteen to fifteen dollars. The greater part went to China, or was used in India; but in the year 1778 the company sent 700,000 pounds to Europe, which was sold at the rate of a hundred pounds for forty-two florins. Malacca furnishes yearly about three or four hundred thousand pounds; but the principal part of it remains in India. In the year 1778 the company sold 100,000 pounds in Amsterdam. A great deal of tin is sold also in its factory at Siam. All the tin sold by it at Amsterdam between the years 1775 and 1779 amounted to 2,421,597 pounds. [Tin occurs native in two forms, as peroxide and as sulphuret of tin and copper. The last is rare; the former constitutes the great source of tin, and in its native state mixed with arsenic, copper, zinc and tungsten, is called tin-stone; but when occurring in rounded masses, grains, or sand in alluvial soil, is called stream-tin. The metal reduced from the tin-stone forms block-tin; whilst that from the stream-tin, and which is the purest, is called grain-tin. The annual produce of the tin mines and works of Cornwall is estimated at 4000 tons, worth from £65 to £80 a ton. About 30,000 cwt. of unwrought tin are annually exported from Britain, chiefly to France, Italy and Russia; which is, exclusive of tin and pewter wares and tin-plates, in declared value nearly £400,000, sent to the United States, Italy, Germany, France, the colonies, &c. Moreover, from 10,000 to 30,000 cwt. of Banca and Malay tin are imported for re-exportation to the continent and the United States. An important enamel has lately been patented for lining the interior of cast iron vessels and utensils used in cooking, chemical operations, &c., which will probably replace tinned articles in a great degree. To apply the process, the vessels are cleansed with weak sulphuric acid, then washed and dipped into a thin paste made with quartz first melted with borax, felspar and clay free from iron, then reduced to an impalpable powder, and sufficient water added to form thinnish paste. The vessels are then powdered inside with a linen bag, containing a very finely powdered mixture of felspar, carbonate of soda, borax, and a little oxide of tin. The articles are then dried and heated in an enamelling furnace. The coating is very white, bears the action of fire without cracking, and completely resists acid or alkaline solutions.] FOOTNOTES [503] [Tin-stone however occurs in Spain and Portugal; and Watson, in his Chemical Essays, states that Spain furnished the ancients with considerable quantities of tin.] [504] Native tin never, or at any rate, very rarely occurs. In the year 1765 a piece was supposed to be found, of which an account may be seen in the Phil. Trans. vol. lvi. p. 35, and vol. lix. p. 47. But the truth of this was denied by most mineralogists, such for example as Jars in Mémoires de l’Acad. à Paris, année 1770, p. 540. Soon after the above-mentioned piece of tin was found in Cornwall, some dealers in minerals sold similar pieces to amateurs at a very dear rate; but all these had been taken from roasting-places, where the tin exudes; and very often what is supposed to be tin is only exuded bismuth, as is proved by some specimens in my collection. I shall here observe, that it may not be improper, in the history of tin, to show that it was believed more than two hundred years ago that this metal was found in a native state. [505] Having requested Professor Tychsen, to whose profound knowledge of Oriental history, languages, and literature I have been already indebted for much assistance, to point out the grounds on which _bedil_ is considered to be our tin, I received the following answer, with permission to insert it in this place. “_Bedil_, בדיל, according to the most probable derivation, means _the separated_. It may therefore, consistent with etymology, be what Pliny calls _stannum_, not tin, but lead from which the silver has not been sufficiently separated. The passage in Isaiah, chap. i. ver. 25, appears to afford a confirmation, because the word there is put in the plural, equivalent to scoriæ, as something separated by fusion. “Others derive _bedil_ from the meaning of the Arabic word بدل _badal_, that is, _substitutum_, _succedaneum_. In this case indeed it might mean tin, which may be readily confounded with silver. “The questions, why _bedil_ has been translated tin, and how old this explanation may be, are answered by another: Is κασσίτερος tin? If this be admitted, the explanation is as old as the Greek version of the seventy interpreters, who in most passages, Ezekiel, chap. xxii. ver. 18 and 20, and chap. xxvii. ver. 12, express it by the word κασσίτερος. In the last-mentioned passage, tin and iron have exchanged places. The Targumists also call it tin; and some, with the Samaritan translation, use the Greek word, but corrupted into _kasteron_, _kastira_. It is also the usual Jewish explanation, that _bedil_ means tin, as _oferet_ does lead. “In the oldest passage, however, where _bedil_ occurs, that is in Numbers, chap. xxxi. ver. 22, the Seventy translate it by μόλιβος, lead, and the Vulgate by _plumbum_, and _vice versâ_, the Seventy for _oferet_ put κασσίτερος, and the Vulgate _stannum_. This, as the oldest explanation which the Latin translator found already in the Septuagint, is particularly worthy of notice. According to it, one might take בדיל, μόλιβος, _stannum_, for the _stannum_ of Pliny, lead with silver; the gradation of the metals still remains; the κασσίτερος of the Seventy may be tin or real lead. It may have denoted tin and lead together, and perhaps the Seventy placed here κασσίτερος, in order that they might have one metal more for the Hebrew _oferet_. But from this explanation it would follow that Moses was not acquainted with tin. “The East has still another name for lead and tin, אנך, _anac_, which occurs only in Amos, chap. vii. ver. 7 and 8, but is abundant in the Syriac, Chaldaic, and Armenian, and comprehends _plumbum_, _nigrum_, and _candidum_. “In the Persian tin is named _kalai_, _resâs_, _arziz_, which are all of Arabic, or, like _kalai_, of Turkish extraction. None of these have any affinity to κασσίτερος and _bedil_. “As tin is brought from India, it occurred to me whether the oldest name, like _tombak_, might not be Malayan. But in the Malayan, _tima_ is the name for tin and lead. Relandi Dissertat. Miscell. iii. p. 65. It would indeed be in vain to look for Asiatic etymologies in regard to κασσίτερος, since, according to the express assertion of Herodotus, the Greeks did not procure tin from Asia, but from the Cassiterides islands. The name may be Phœnician; and though Bochart has not ventured to give any etymology of it, one, in case of necessity, might have been found equally probable as that which he has given of Britannia. But it appears to me more probable that the word is of Celtic extraction, because similar names are found in Britain, such as _Cassi_, an old British family; _Cassivelaunus_, a British leader opposed to Cæsar; _Cassibelanus_, in all probability, the same name in the time of Claudius. _Cassi-ter_, with the Greek termination ος, seems to be a Celtic compound, the meaning of which might perhaps be found in Pelletier, Bullet, &c.” [506] Plin. lib. xxxiv. cap. 16, § 47, p. 669. [507] The last meaning is found in Pliny, xxxiii. 6, § 31, and xxxiv. 18, § 53:--“Est et molybdæna, quam alio loco galenam vocavimus, vena argenti plumbique communis. Adhærescit et auri et argenti fornacibus; et hanc metallicam vocant.” Here then there are both the significations, first _bleyglanz_, secondly _ofenbruch_. The name _galena_ seems to have been borrowed from foreign metallurgic works, perhaps from the Spanish, as was conjectured by Agricola in Bermannus, p. 434. This, at any rate, is more probable than the derivation of Vossius from γέλειν, _splendere_, especially as the Greeks have not the word _galena_. [508] I explain the passage in this manner, but I acknowledge that difficulties still remain. I have however thought that it might perhaps be thus understood; that in the process of fusion, as then used, the _galena_ formed the third part of the weight of the ore or paste, and lead a third part of the _galena_; though I doubt whether the products of metallic works were then so accurately weighed. I shall leave the reader to determine whether the two explanations of Savot are better. He supposes either that Pliny gives three ways of obtaining lead, namely, from lead ore, argentiferous ore, and _galena_; or that he says that silver forms a third, lead a third, and slag the remaining third. But if the first opinion be correct, why did Pliny say “Plumbi origo duplex?” [509] Bermannus, pp. 450, 485. [510] De Re Metallica, lib. iii. Franc. (1551), 8vo. [511] De Metallis, cap. 22. Franc. 1606, fol. i. p. 322. [512] Discours sur les médailles antiques par Louis Savot. Paris, 1627, 4to, ii. 2, p. 48. This work contains valuable information in regard to the mineralogy of the ancients. [513] In Aldrovandi Musæum Metallicum. Bonon. 1648, fol. p. 181. [514] J. Jungii Doxoscopia, Hamb. 1662, cap. 5, _de metalli speciebus_. [515] I shall here point out a few passages where such vessels are mentioned. Dioscorides, ii. 84, p. 109.--Plin. xxix. 2, § 20; xxx. 5, § 12, and xxx. 7, § 19.--Columella, xii. 41.--Vegetius, i. 16.--Scribonius Largus Composit. Med. Patavii, 1655, 4to, § 230. [516] Sueton. Vitell. 6, p. 192; where it is said tin, which was of a white colour, was to serve instead of silver. [517] In the work already quoted, i. cap. 32, p. 64: “Vides stannum Plinio esse quiddam de plumbo nigro, nempe primum fluorem plumbi nigri;” so that when our lead ore is fused, the first part that flows would be the _stannum_ of Pliny. “Et hoc docet Plinius adulterari plumbo candido;” with our tin, and properly considered the _stannum_ of Pliny is merely our _halbwerk_, of which those cans called _halbwerk_ are made. Entzel deserves that I should here revive the remembrance of him. He was a native of Salfeld; preacher, _pastor Osterhusensis_, and a friend of Melancthon, who recommended the book for publication to Egenholf, a bookseller of Frankfort, in a letter dated 1551, in which year it was first printed. It was reprinted at the same place in 1557, and at Basle in 1555, 8vo. [518] The French letter-founders take four-fifths of lead and one-fifth regulus of antimony; those of Berlin use eleven pounds of antimony, twenty-five of lead, and five of iron. Many add also tin, copper, and brass. [Those of England use three parts of lead and one of antimony.] [519] Von Hutten-werken, p. 376. [520] A good account of this manufactory may be found in the Journal für Fabrik, Manufact. Handlung und Mode, 1793. We are told there that the buttons were made of a composition which had a white silver-like colour, and was susceptible of a fine polish. [This was probably some alloy of nickel, one of the principal constituents of German silver.] [521] Lib. iii. p. 254. [522] That the merchants, in the oldest periods, endeavoured by false information to conceal the sources of their trade, might be proved by various instances. [523] Supplementa in Lexica Hebraica p. 151. [524] The authors here quoted, corresponding to the above letters, are as follows:-- [a] Plinius, xxxiv. 16, p. 668. [b] Cæsar De Bello Gallico, v. 12. [c] Aristot. Auscult. Mirab. cap. 51, p. 100. [d] Galenus De Antidot. i. 8. p. 209. ed. gr. Basil. vol. ii. p. 431. [e] Plin. iv. 22. p. 630. [f] Herodot. lib. iii. p. 254. edit. Wess. [g] Plin. iv. 16, p. 223. [h] Strabo, lib. iii. p. 219. ed. Almel. [i] Strabo, lib. xv. p. 1055. [j] Diodor. Sic. lib. v. p. 347. ed. Wess. [k] Diod. Sic. lib. v. p. 361. [l] Stephan. Byzant. v. Tartessus, p. 639. [m] Dionys. Periegesis, v. 563. [n] Prisciani Perieg. v. 575. [o] Avienus Descript. Urbis, v. 743. [p] Homeri Iliad. xviii. 612. [q] Iliad. xi. 25. [r] Iliad. xxiii. 561. [s] Iliad. xviii. 565, 574. [t] Hesiod. Scut. Herculis, v. 208. [u] Aristot. Œconom. lib. ii. p. 594. [v] Pollux Onomast. p. 1055. [w] Pomp. Mela, iii. 6, 24, p. 275. [x] Plin. xxxiii. 5, p. 621. [y] Plin. xxxiv. 17, § 48, p. 669; and lib. xxxiii. § 45: Optima specula apud majores fuerant Brundisiana stanno et ære mixtis. From a similar mixture the best metallic specula are cast at present. [525] Borlase’s Antiquities of Cornwall. Ox. 1754, fol. p. 29. [526] Lib. iv. cap. 22, p. 230. [527] Minéralogie Homerique, Par. 1790, 8vo. A small treatise much esteemed. [528] Lib. xi. 24, 25. [529] See what I have already said, vol. i. p. 472. [530] Savot, p. 53.--Watson’s Chemical Essays, iv. p. 187. [531] Schefferi Lapponia, Francof. 1673, 4to, pp. 210, 261, where a figure is given of a Lapland woman drawing threads. [532] Phil. Trans. 1702, 1703, vol. xxiii. p. 1129. [533] Phil. Trans. 1759, vol. li. p. 13, where figures of the vessels are given. Whitaker’s Hist. of Manchester, i. p. 306. [534] Borlase’s Cornwall, p. 30; and his Observations on the Islands of Scilly. Oxf. 1756, 4to. [535] Natural Hist. of Cornwall, p. 177. [536] In the Antiquities of Cornwall, p. 394: _Ik_, _yk_, _ick_, a common termination of creeks in Cornwall, as _Pordinik_, _Pradnik_. [537] Dionysii Orbis Descriptio. Londini, 1679, 8vo, p. 220, where Hill’s observations deserve to be read. [538] Voyages de Chardin. Rouen, 1723, 12mo, iv. 65, where it is expressly said that Persia has no tin, but that it obtains it from India. The same thing is confirmed by Tavernier. [539] Fortunati Opera. Romæ, 1786, 4to, i. p. 14, lib. i. cap. 8. [540] Proofs may be found in Dufresne. [541] Wencesl. Hagec Böhmische Chronik. Nürnb. 1697, fol. p. 53. [542] For example, Borlase in Natur. Hist.--Speed’s Theatre of Great Britain.--Camden’s Britannia.--Anderson’s Hist. of Commerce, &c. [543] This metal, however, must have remained long dear; for it is remarked in the Archæologia, vol. iii. p. 154, from an expense-book of the Earls of Northumberland, that vessels of tin, about the year 1500, in consequence of their dearness, had not become common. This is confirmed also by a regulation respecting the household of Henry VIII., printed also in the Archæologia, where it is said, “Officers of the squillery to see all the vessels, as well silver as pewter, be kept and saved from stealing.” [544] C. Bruschii redivivi Beschreib. des Fichtelberges. Nürnb. 1683. [545] See Gegenwärtiger Staat von England, Portugal, und Spanien (by Theodore King of Corsica), ii. p. 25. [546] Narrisch Weisheit, p. 51. [547] Yarranton’s England’s Improvement by Sea and Land, 1698. [548] Watson’s Chem. Essays, iv. p. 203.--Anderson’s Commerce. [549] This is related by Diderot in his article _Fer-blanc_ in the Encyclopédie. That the _Fer-blanc_ of the French is tin plate every one knows; but what are we to understand by _ferrum candidum_, a hundred talents of which were given as a present to Alexander in India? No commentator has noticed this appellation. In the index, however, to Snakenburg’s Curtius, I find the conjecture that it may mean the _ferrum Indicum_, which, lib. xvi. § 7. _ff_ de Publicanis, or Digest. xxxix. 4, § 16, 7, is named among the articles liable to pay duty; but some editions in this passage have _ebenum Indicum_. The reader is referred also to Photii Biblioth. p. 145, where Ctesias relates a fable in regard to Indian iron. Pliny, xxxiv. 14, p. 667, mentions _ferrum Sericum_, which in his time was considered as the best; but still it may be asked, why is the epithet white applied in particular to the Indian iron? Compare Aristot. de Mirab. Auscult. pp. 96, 426. [550] Ramusio, fol. i. p. 166. c. [551] Ib. i. p. m. 317. d. SOWING-MACHINES. That under the terms sowing-machine, _semoir_, drill-plough, _macchine per seminare_, are understood implements by which the seeds of those plants cultivated on a large scale, and particularly the different species of corn, can be regularly deposited in the earth, and at any distance from each other, at pleasure, is at present generally known. The principal part of the machine consists of a box, having within it a cylinder furnished with cogs, which forms the axes of two wheels, and which, as it revolves, assists the seed put into the box to escape through holes formed at a proper distance from each other in the bottom. At first, these machines were exceedingly simple, and had only in the fore-part a ploughshare; but afterwards a harrow was applied behind, so that with such an apparatus one could plough, sow, and harrow at the same time. It was attended, however, with the common fault of all very complex machines; it was too artificial, too expensive, and too easily deranged. The greater part, therefore, of those lately made have only a harrow behind them. Since the beginning of the last century so many machines of this kind have been invented, that to give a complete catalogue of them would be difficult. The invention, however, does not belong either to our period or to the English, who have hitherto paid the greatest attention to the improvement and employment of it. I have somewhere read that a proposal for a machine of this kind occurs in Theophrastus; but I have not yet been able to discover the passage. I am much rather inclined, from the information I have hitherto obtained, to place this invention in the sixteenth century, and to ascribe the merit of it to the Italians. By our oldest writers on agriculture, Heresbach, Colerus, Florinus, Hohberg and others, it is not mentioned. Joseph Locatelli, of whom, however, very little is known, is commonly considered as the inventor. That he was a nobleman of Carinthia, but not a count, as he is called in Iöcher’s Dictionary of Learned Men, is proved by a small work consisting of two sheets in quarto, now in my possession[552]. It is there stated, that experiments were made with a machine of this kind by the emperor’s order, at the imperial palace and market of Laxenburg, in the presence of a commissioner, named Pietro Bonaventura von Crollolanza, appointed for that purpose. These experiments succeeded so well, that a crop of sixty for one was obtained from land not manured, and subject to frequent inundation. On this account the emperor rewarded the inventor, and sent him with letters of recommendation to the king of Spain. In this small work no date is mentioned but on the title-page; and if that be correct, the invention must be placed in the last year of the sixteenth or the first of the seventeenth century, consequently in the reign of the emperor Rudolphus II., who had a great fondness for mechanical inventions. This treatise is certainly the same which, as Reinman says, was printed in 1690 without any place being mentioned, and according to Haller, at Jena, 1690; but the author of it cannot have been the inventor, as asserted by Iöcher, who adds, that the tract in question was printed at Vienna in the year above-mentioned. The date 1603, however, can hardly be correct; it ought rather to be 1693, and in that case the tract might have been three times printed between that period and 1690. The date in the title-page of my copy appears properly to have in it a 9, which resembles a zero, only because the compositor used a type on which the lower part of the figure was broke. That this conjecture is true, I have, I think, sufficiently proved; though Munchhausen, Haller, and others read the date 1603. In the year 1669, John Evelyn gave to the Royal Society of London a complete description of Locatelli’s invention[553]. He there says that the inventor went with his machine to Spain, where he proved the advantage of it by public experiments, and described them in a Spanish work, dedicated to Geronimo de Camargo, member of the _Consejo real de Castilla_, who was commissioned by the king to make known and promote the use of this machine, the sale of which was secured to the inventor at a price fixed in his patent. This Spanish work, from which Evelyn made an extract, was printed with the Austrian approbation of Crollolanza, and the date Aug. 1st, 1663. Locatelli must immediately after have gone to Spain, for it is there stated that his machines were made and sold in great abundance at Madrid, in 1664. The invention belongs, therefore, to the year 1663. This machine was exceedingly simple. The seed-box, the cylinder of which was furnished with two small wheels, required only to be hooked or fastened, by means of ropes, to the stilt of the plough. A figure of it may be found in the before-mentioned German tract; also in the Philosophical Transactions, and thence copied into Duhamel’s Traité de la Culture des Terres[554]. The Italians, however, dispute with Locatelli the honour of the invention. They assert that one of their countrymen, named M. Giovanni Cavallina, of Bologna, proposed such a sowing-machine a century and a half before; and they refer for a proof to the account preserved by Gio Battista Segni in his work upon Scarcity. This book I have never seen. Haller gives the title from Seguier, and says that it was first printed at Bologna, in 1602; but Zanon states 1605, and says that this Segni, who is not noticed by Iöcher, was a _canonicus regularis_[555]. Of Cavallina I have not been able to find any further account; not even in the large and full work of Fantuzzi. I can therefore give only the description of Segni as transcribed by Zanon[556]. From this it appears that the machine alluded to had also a seed-box with two wheels, and might be compared to a bolting-mill, but below each hole of the bottom board there seems to have been an iron funnel, which before was shaped like a plough-share. The machine, therefore, seems to have formed as many small furrows as it dropped grains of corn; and, as far as can be judged, there was in the bottom only one row of holes. It appears also that each grain of corn, as soon as it dropped, was covered with earth by the machine. Whether Locatelli took advantage of this invention, and gave it out, with some alteration, as his own, cannot be easily determined. Soon after Locatelli’s invention another sowing-machine was proposed at Brescia, by the Jesuit Lana, who seems to have had no knowledge of the preceding ones; at least he makes no mention of them. The case with Lana was perhaps the same as with many ingenious men, who possess great powers of invention. As they never read, but only think, they are unacquainted with what others have done before them, and therefore consider every idea which comes into their mind as new. He proposed a harrow, the spikes of which should make holes in the earth, in the same manner as gardeners do with their bean-planter, and the grains of corn were to fall into these holes from a box pierced like a sieve, and placed over the harrow[557]. I do not know whether this, at present, could be called a sowing-machine; but it is not improbable that an apparatus of this kind would facilitate the planting, or, as it is termed, setting of wheat, which in modern times has been revived in England, and particularly in Suffolk. For this purpose holes are made three inches apart, in rows four inches distant from each other, with a bean-planter, by men and women. Each labourer is followed by three children, who throw two or three grains of seed into each hole. One labourer in a second can make four holes, and in two or three days plant an acre. For this he obtained nine shillings, one-half of which was given to the children[558]. By these means there is a saving of one-half the seed; and this defrays the expenses. The wheat also, when it grows up, is cleaner as well as more beautiful; and this method, besides, affords employment to a great number of persons. However minute and ridiculous this method of planting may appear to our practical farmers, it is nevertheless true that it has been found beneficial in Upper Lusatia[559]. The objection that corn when planted in this manner may throw out too many stems, which will not all ripen at the same time, can be true only when the grains are placed at too great a distance from each other. The German mode of farming however is still too remote from horticulture to admit of our attaching great value to the advantages with which this method is attended. I shall here remark, that Sir Francis Bacon says that in his time, that is, in the beginning of the seventeenth century, attempts had been made to plant wheat, but being too laborious it was again abandoned, though he declares it to be undoubtedly advantageous[560]. In the most populous districts of China almost all the corn is set, or it is first sown in forcing-beds, and then transplanted. The English call the labour with the sowing-machine _drilling_, and the planting of wheat they name _dibbling_. [Several sowing-machines have been invented, and patents taken out for them in late years. As it is very difficult to give a description of them, and still more so for the reader to comprehend them without figures, we refer to the Penny Cyclopædia, art. “Sowing-machine,” for an account of the more important.] FOOTNOTES [552] The title is, Beschreibung eines neuen Instruments mit welchem das Getraide zugleich geackert und gesäet werden kan; erfunden von Locatelli, Landmann im Erz-Herzogthum Cärndten. Anno 1603. Without the name of any place, printer, or publisher. [553] Phil. Trans. vol. v. No. 60, p. 1056. [554] Paris, 1753, 12mo, i. p. 368, tab. 6. Duhamel has committed a double error. He speaks of the invention as if the first experiments were made in Spain, and as if those in Austria had been later. He says also, that the latter were made _dans le Luxembourg in Istria_. The English account also says erroneously Luxembourg, instead of Lachsenburg or Laxemburg, which is in Austria, and not in Istria. [555] Of Segni an account may be found in Notizie degli Scrittori Bolognesi raccolte da Giovanni Fantuzzi. In Bologna 1784-1794, 9 vols. 4to, vii. p. 377. Segni, who died in 1610, wrote a great many ascetic books, the names of which are there given. [556] Dell’ agricultura, dell’ arti e del commercio. Lettere di Antonio Zanon. In Venezia 1764, 8vo, vol. iii. p. 325. [557] Prodromo, overo saggio di alcune inventioni nuove, premesso all’ arte maestra. In Brescia 1670, fol. p. 96, fig. 26. [558] See the excellent account of the agriculture in Suffolk in my Journal, the Beytragen zur Oekonomie, &c., i. p. 1. It was written by M. F. Wild, of Durlach, who in the year 1767 was one of my pupils, and afterwards became teacher in the Institute of Education at Colmar. But alas! I do not know whither he has now been swept by the vortex of the revolution. [559] Leske Reise durch Sachsen. Leipzig, 1785, 4to, p. 319. [560] Sylva Sylvarum, cent. 5, § 442. MANGANESE[561]. That the art of glass-making may have arisen from an accident, such as that mentioned by Pliny[562], I am ready to admit; but by what accident were artists made acquainted with the use of manganese, a mineral the outward appearance of which seems to announce nothing that could be useful to the glass-maker? It is not found in such abundance as to allow us to suppose that it naturally presented itself; nor do we know that any older application of it may have induced the ancients to employ and examine it in such a manner that the present use of it might be accidentally discovered. In general, it resembles some kinds of iron-stone, which it was considered to be till a very late period. That iron, however, colours glass must have been very early remarked; and therefore it could occur to no one to employ manganese for depriving frit[563] of its colour. It produces this decoloration only when it is added sparingly, and according to a determinate proportion; otherwise it gives to the glass a violet colour, something similar to that of the amethyst. The application of manganese was certainly taught by accident, and not by theory. But in regard to the question, why it frees glass from its dirty colour, it must be admitted, if we readily acknowledge the truth, that we can offer only hypotheses; as the old chemists called in the aid of phlogiston, and the new that of oxygen[564]. Did a false hypothesis, then, conduct to this discovery? That this was the case, has been asserted by old as well as more modern writers, and is no doubt possible. Thus Kepler, from an erroneous hypothesis in regard to the revolution of the planets, discovered the ratio of their motion, according to their distance from the sun; and such instances may be adduced in favour of hypotheses which have done more harm than good. But, in my opinion, in examining the origin of the ancient arts, we ought not to give credit to any cause assigned for an invention until no other can be found. In regard to the art in question, I think I can mention one which, at any rate, has probability in its favour, and which I shall here submit to the reader’s decision. That it was observed at an early period that metallic oxides, and particularly that of iron, which most frequently occurs, communicate various colours to glass, has been already proved[565]. It needs therefore excite no wonder that men should be induced to make experiments on colouring glass with various minerals, and especially such as contained iron. Now, since manganese, as already said, has a great resemblance to iron-stone, it was also occasionally employed; and it was soon found that this supposed species of iron-stone, according as it is used in greater or less quantity, gives to glass many beautiful shades of a violet, red, and dark brown colour. As it was necessary that the artist should weigh the manganese, in order to proportion it to the vitreous mass, according to the required colour, it is possible that the glass, when a very small quantity had been added, was found to be colourless. This observation must have been made with the greater satisfaction, and more readily turned to advantage, the higher colourless glass, which approached nearest to rock crystal, was at that time esteemed[566]. The period however when this great improvement in one of the most useful arts was fortunately introduced, cannot with certainty be determined; but it is very probable that it was practised in the time of Pliny. Were not this the case, what should have induced him, more than once, to remark that the magnet was employed in glass? Under this name the ancients certainly comprehended manganese; which, in general, had a resemblance to the magnet, and was considered as such by Agricola, Kircher, and others, at a more modern period. Pliny[567], in one passage, speaks of a kind of magnet which was found in Cantabria, not in veins, but interspersed or in nuclei; and he adds that he did not know whether it was useful in glass-making, because no one had ever tried it. This use of manganese then must at that time have been very common, since it occurred so readily to a writer in speaking of a supposed magnet. Another passage of Pliny has been supposed to allude to manganese, but in my opinion with much less probability. It is that where he says _Alabandicus_ flows in the fire, and is fused at the glass-houses[568]. But by that term he seems to understand a kind of marble, according to the opinion of Isidorus, by whom the word is repeated. As a calcareous earth it was perhaps added to promote the fusion of the sand. Camillus Leonardus, however, considered the _Alabandicus_ as manganese[569]. It is not improbable that the ancients employed manganese, if not for glazing, at any rate for painting their pottery or earthenware, as soon as they became acquainted at the glass-houses with its susceptibility of being converted into a coloured vitreous mass. But this is far from being proved, though count Caylus, Genssane and others positively assert that the so-called Etruscan vases and lamps were painted with the same manganese that we use for our earthen-ware. Those who attempt to trace out the history of the arts must be very cautious not to admit, without sufficient proof, that what the ancients accomplished was effected by the same means as those employed by us for the same purpose. This, in some cases, may be true; but in many others false. Thus, they made a beautiful kind of blue and red glass, without being acquainted with our cobalt and mineral purple; and they performed very long sea voyages without our compass. It is the duty of the historian either to point out the means which the ancients employed, whether they were the same or not as those used at present, or to acknowledge that their processes are unknown to us. Those who invariably follow this rule will sometimes discover that, in ancient times, men were able to accomplish the same objects and to produce the same effects, by means totally different from those used at present; and then the question will sometimes arise, Which of the means, the old or the new, are the cheapest, the most convenient, and the surest? This leads to technological problems, the solution of which, notwithstanding the great superiority we possess in those auxiliaries of the arts, natural history, chemistry, &c., is impossible. I have indulged in these observations, in mentioning the celebrated Caylus, because I well know that he has often erred in not attending to them. I acknowledge and respect the service of this eminent man; but I am convinced that by the boldness of his assertions he acquired greater confidence and more celebrity than he deserved. The colours on the Etruscan vases have a resemblance indeed to those on our stone-ware, but it is also true that they might be produced by oxide of iron. The substances used by the ancient potters can be determined only by the testimony of the ancients or by experiments; but the former is not to be found; and the latter have never been made, though they would not be difficult to any chemist who might choose to sacrifice a few vessels of that kind. The question how the use of manganese was first found out, occurred even to Pliny; and his opinion on that subject deserves to be quoted, especially as it was long considered as true by Albertus Magnus, Caneparius, and many later writers. To understand it one must know that it was at first believed that the magnet, as it attracts iron, could attract other bodies also; and it was conjectured that other minerals might possess a similar property. Some imagined that they had found magnets for gold and silver. In the oldest times men had so erroneous an opinion of the art of glass-making, that they conceived that glass was obtained from sand, as metal from its ore; and Pliny thinks that they then conjectured that a magnet could attract glass as well as it does iron. Now as manganese, on account of its similarity, was considered to be a magnet, it was consequently subjected to experiments, which gave rise to the beneficial discovery that it renders glass colourless. This use of it then has been retained through every age to the present time, and it is mentioned by all those authors who have written on glass-making. Avicenna[570] makes so complete a distinction between it and the magnet, that he treats of each in a particular section, though he says nothing of its employment in the glass-houses; but indeed as a physician he had no opportunity of doing so. Albertus Magnus[571], however, who lived a century later, Roger Bacon, Basilius Valentine, Camillus Leonardus, Biringoccio, Mercati, Neri and many others have spoken in the plainest terms of this application. It is seen by the words quoted from different authors, that the name, which as far as I know occurs first in Albertus Magnus, was written in a great many different ways: _magnesia_, _magnosia_, _magnasia_, _manganensis_, _mangadesum_, and in French _magalaise_, _méganaise_, _magnese_. One might imagine that it is derived from magnet, partly on account of the similarity of the two substances, and partly on account of its supposed power to attract glass. Besides, its other name _sidera_ seems to have a reference to the Greek word for iron. Mercati, however, deduces the term from _mangonizare_, because potters besmear their wares with this mineral; but I suspect that the name was common before that use of the substance was known. It is to be observed that to this word various other significations have been given. Sometimes it seems to denote common iron-stone, and sometimes pyrites. What the gold-makers understood by it will be best discovered by consulting the works of their followers. _Braunstein_ also, the German name, the earliest mention of which occurs perhaps in the writings of Basilius Valentine, denoted at first every kind of ferruginous earth employed by the potters for painting. Thus Schwenkfeld gave the name of _Braunstein_ and _Braunfarbe_ to a kind of bloodstone[572]. For a long time the manganese imported from Piedmont was in Germany accounted the best, and therefore was much sought after by the artists of Nuremberg. Afterwards, a kind brought from Perigord, a place in Guyenne, and named _pierre de Périgueux_, or _lapis petracorius_, was highly esteemed. Wallerius gives this as a peculiar species; and in my opinion he is right. Its distinguishing characters are, that it resembles a burnt coal or cinder; has a somewhat shining surface, and on the fracture appears to be finely striped and a little coloured. A piece which I have in my possession exhibits all these marks. This species has been mentioned by very few of the new mineralogists. Germany, however, for some centuries past has employed its own manganese, which even in the time of Biringoccio was sent as an article of commerce to Italy. [The distinctness of the metal contained in the manganese of commerce from iron was first proved by the experiments of Pott in 1740, by Kaim and Winterl in 1770, and by Scheele and Bergman in 1774. Soon after this the metal itself was obtained in an isolated state by Gahn, who gave to it the name of _magnesium_, which term however was subsequently applied to the metal contained in magnesia, and the word _manganese_ has been adopted to designate both the metal and the black ore. In addition to its application in the manufacture of glass, it is now very extensively used in the decomposition of common salt for the production of chlorine for bleaching. Some salts of the lower oxides of manganese have lately been used in calico-printing as a source of brown colours.] FOOTNOTES [561] [The word manganese, strictly speaking, designates the metal itself, the peroxide of which is understood by the author whenever the word manganese occurs in the text.] [562] Lib. xxxvi. 26, § 25.--See Hambergeri Vitri Historia, in Comment. Societ. Götting. tom. iv. anni 1754, p. 487. [563] Under this appellation, writers on the art of glass-making understand a mixture of sand or siliceous earth and alkaline salts, which at the German glass-houses, where the above word is seldom heard, is called _Einsatz_. It appears to have been brought to us, along with the art, from Italy, where it is written at present _fritta_, and to be derived from _fritto_, which signifies something broiled or roasted. It seems to be the same word as _freton_, which occurs in Thomas Norton’s Poem, Crede mihi, sive Ordinale, where it however signifies a particular kind of solid glass, fused together from small fragments. This Englishman lived about the year 1477. His treatise was several times printed. [564] [The action of peroxide of manganese (the only compound of the metal used in the manufacture of glass) is simple and clearly understood. The sand (silica) used in the manufacture of glass frequently contains iron, which by the heat necessary for the fusion of the glass becomes reduced to the state of protoxide, giving the glass a greenish or yellowish colour; also, if any organic substance be present in the materials (and where sulphate of soda is used, charcoal is added), the glass is not colourless. When peroxide of manganese is added, it parts with some of its oxygen, becoming reduced to the protoxide, which remains colourless in the glass, the protoxide of iron absorbing the oxygen, becomes at the same time converted into the peroxide, which also imparts no colour to the glass, which is thus rendered colourless. If more of the peroxide of manganese be added than the carbon or protoxide of iron can reduce, it will tinge the glass of an amethyst colour, as stated in the text.] [565] See the History of Ruby-glass in vol. i. p. 123. [566] Plin. xxxvi. 26, p. 759, and lib. xxxvii. cap. 6, p. 769; he says that artists could make glass vessels nearly similar to those of rock crystal; but he remarks that the latter had nevertheless risen in price. [567] Lib. xxxvii. 24, § 66. [568] Plin. xxxvi. 8, § 13, p. 735. [569] Speculum Lapidum, Parisiis, 1610, 8vo, p. 71. It may not be superfluous here to remark, that this _Alabandicus_ of Pliny must not, as is often the case, be confounded with the precious stone to which he gives the same name, lib. xxxvii. cap. 8. The name properly denotes only a stone from Alabanda in Caria. It occurs, but much corrupted, as the name of a costly stone, in writings of the middle ages. See in Du Cange Alamandinæ, Alavandinæ, Almandinæ; and even in our period so fertile in names, a stone which is sometimes classed with the ruby and sometimes with the garnet, and which is sometimes said to have an affinity to the topaz and hyacinth, is called _Alamandine_ and _Alabandiken_. See Brückman on Precious Stones, who in the second continuation, p. 64, deduces the word from _Allemands_, without recollecting the proper derivation, which he gives himself, i. p. 89 according to Pliny. [570] Canon Medicinæ, lib. ii. tract. 2, cap. 470, de Magnete; and cap. 472, de Magnesia. [571] In his book De Mineralibus, lib. ii. tract. 2, cap. 11. [572] Stirpium et Fossilium Silesiæ Catalogus, Lipsiæ, 1600, 4to, p. 381. PRINCE RUPERT’S DROPS. LACRYMÆ VITREÆ. It is more than probable that these drops, and the singular property which they possess, have been known at the glass-houses since time immemorial. All glass, when suddenly cooled, becomes brittle, and breaks on the least scratch. On this account, as far back as the history of the art can be traced, a cooling furnace was always constructed close to the fusing furnace. A drop of fused glass falling into water[573] might easily have given rise to the invention of these drops; at any rate this might have been the case in rubbing off what is called the navel[574]. It is however certain that they were not known to experimental philosophers till the middle of the seventeenth century. Their withstanding great force applied at the thick end, and even blows; and on the other hand, bursting into the finest dust when the smallest fragment is broken off from the thin end, are properties so peculiar that they must excite the curiosity of philosophers, and induce them to examine these effects, especially at a time when mankind in general exert themselves with the greatest zeal to become better acquainted with the phænomena of natural bodies. On this account they have been noticed in almost every introduction to experimental philosophy. To determine the time then in which they were first made known, seems to be attended with little difficulty; but it still remains doubtful by whom and in what country. It appears certain that the first experiments were made by philosophers with these drops in the year 1656. Monconys[575], who travelled at that period, was present when such experiments were made at Paris, before a learned society, which assembled at the house of Mommor, the well-known patron of Gassendi; and the same year he saw similar experiments made by several scientific persons at London. He tells us expressly that Chanut, the Swedish resident, procured glass drops for the first Parisian experiments, and that these drops were brought from Holland. It appears, therefore, that the first glass drops were made in Holland; yet Montanari, who was professor of mathematics at Bologna, says that the first were not made by the Dutch, but by the Swedes. The grounds, however, on which he rests his assertion are exceedingly weak. Because a Swedish resident procured those used for the first experiments, it does not follow that they were made at Swedish glass-houses, especially as it is positively said that they were brought from Holland. It was indeed stated so early as 1661, by Henry Regius or Van Roy, professor at Utrecht, that these glass drops came from Sweden; but may not this have been a lapse of memory, occasioned by the circumstance that the first drops used by the natural philosophers of Paris were procured by a Swedish resident. Monconys, whose relation indeed bears evident marks of great haste as well as credulity, calls Chanut _Résident de Suède_, and seems to have considered him as a Swedish resident at the French court; an opinion in which he has been followed by many literary men. But Pierre Chanut was French resident at Stockholm, and at that time so well-known that Monconys could hardly be unacquainted with his quality. He was resident from the year 1645 to 1649; and he was afterwards envoy for adjusting the disputes between Sweden and Poland, which were to be settled at Lubec. He is often mentioned in Puffendorf’s book De Rebus Suecicis, and the printed account of his missions and negociations contain important materials towards a history of queen Christina, with whom he was a great favourite. He superintended the funeral of Descartes, who was interred with great honour. He was born in 1601; but with the time of his death I am unacquainted. He was celebrated as a man of great learning, and particularly an able mathematician; and it is neither improbable nor even impossible that he may have sent the first glass drops to Paris from Sweden; but why does Monconys add that they were brought from Holland? It deserves to be mentioned, that about fifteen years before, that is in 1641, the first glass-houses were established in Sweden, and in all probability by Germans. It is possible that when the blowing of glass was first seen, glass drops may have excited an attention which they had not met with in Germany, where no one expected anything new in glass-houses, which were there common and had long been established. It can nevertheless be proved that they were known to our glass-blowers at a much earlier period. In 1695, John Christian Schulenburg, subrector of the cathedral school of Bremen, published there a German Dissertation on glass drops and their properties, in which he says that he was informed by glass-makers worthy of credit, that these drops had been made more than seventy years before at the Mecklenburg glass-houses, that is to say, about the year 1625. Samuel Reyher, professor at Kiel, says that Henry Sievers, teacher of mathematics in the gymnasium of Hamburg, had assured him that such glass drops were given to his father by a glass-maker so early as the year 1637; and that his father had exhibited them in a company of friends, who were much astonished at their effects. Reyher adds, that he himself had seen at Leyden, in 1656, the first of these glass drops, which had been made at Amsterdam, where he afterwards purchased some of the same kind; but in 1666 he procured for a very small sum a great many of them from the glass-houses in the neighbourhood of Kiel. It is worthy of remark, that Huet[576], who paid considerable attention to the history of inventions, says that the first glass drops, which he had seen also in the society held at the house of Mommor, were brought to France from Germany. According to Anthony Le Grand they came from Prussia[577]. The first glass drops were brought to England by the well-known Prince Rupert, third son of the elector Palatine, Frederic V., and the princess Elizabeth, daughter of James I.; and experiments, described by Rupert Moray, were made with them in 1661 by command of his majesty. This is expressly stated by Merret[578]; and therefore what some English writers have supposed, that Prince Rupert himself was the inventor, is entirely erroneous[579]. The services which he rendered to the useful arts were too great and too numerous to be either lessened or increased by such trifles. I shall take this opportunity of remarking, that those small glasses hermetically sealed and containing a drop of water, which when placed on hot coals burst with a loud report, and therefore are called in German _knallgläser_, fulminating glasses, were known before 1665. Hooke speaks of them in his Micrographia[580] printed in that year, and they were mentioned by Reyher in 1669, in his Dissertation already quoted. In Germany they are made chiefly by Nuremberg artists; one of the most celebrated of whom was Michael Sigismund Hack. He learnt the art of glass-blowing in England, and in 1672 returned to Nuremberg, where he was born in 1643[581]. FOOTNOTES [573] It is not always necessary that the water should be cold; these drops will be formed also in warm water, as well as in every other fluid, and even in melted wax. See Redi’s experiments in Miscellan. Naturæ Curios. anni secundi, 1671, p. 426. They succeed best with green glass, yet I have in my possession some of white glass, which in friability are not inferior to those of green. [574] The navel, in German _nabel_, is that piece of glass which remains adhering to the pipe when any article has been blown, and which the workman must rub off. These navels, however, are seldom in so fluid a state as to form drops. [575] Journal des Voyages de M. Monconys, Lyon, 1666, 4to, ii. p. 162. [576] Commentarius de rebus ad eum pertinentibus, Lips. 1719. [577] Historia Naturalis. Edit. secunda, Londini 1680, 4to, p. 37. [578] In his Observations on Neri Ars Vitraria, Amstel. 1668, 12mo. [579] This is said, for example, by Grainger in his Biographical History of England. London, 1769, vol. ii. part 2, p. 407. [580] This book was only once printed, but the title-page has the date