87. One manuscript, according to Kennicot, has however אדרת שעו, a

hairy mantle or fur; but this has arisen either through an error in transcribing, one consonant, נ _Nun_, being omitted; or from the conjecture of some Jewish copyist, who was acquainted with costly furs but not with a Babylonian mantle. If the reading of Kennicot is to be retained, it would, on account of the price, be an important passage, in regard to costly furs. “Among the Hebrews, the prophets wore fur dresses, if not in general, at any rate very often. “The mantle of Elijah, 2 Kings, chap. ii. ver. 8, 13, 14, was of fur; because on account of his clothing he was called a hairy man, 2 Kings, chap. i. ver. 8. “A hairy mantle, as a mark of distinction, is mentioned in the book of Zechariah, chap. xiii. ver. 4. “In 1 Maccabees, chap. xiii. ver. 37, the high priest Simon obtained from king Demetrius βαίνη, which is certainly a false reading for βαίτα, or βαίτη. The only question is, whether βαίτη, which was merely a shepherd’s dress, consequently made of sheep skins, signified also a dress of state, as there is reason to conjecture from the persons who sent and who received it as a present. See Theocrit. Idyll. iii. 25. et ibi Schol. Furs, as a present, in the hot climate of Bassorah, are mentioned by Niebuhr.” [723] The best refutation of this supposed Vandalism is to be found in Schlözer’s Essay, in the second edition of F. I. L. Mayers Fragmenten aus Paris. Hamb. 1798, 8vo, ii. p. 353. Nowhere do we find that the works of art were destroyed by the Goths or Vandals; on the contrary, it appears that they had sufficient culture to hold them in just estimation. Genseric carried away works of art from Rome, in the same manner as the Romans had done from Greece; but they were carefully packed up and not destroyed; he did therefore what Bonaparte did in those countries which were unable to withstand the force of his armies. If the epithet of Vandalism is to be applied to modern events, it seems most applicable to those who carried away works of art from countries into which the conquerors promised to introduce the rights of man, liberty, and happiness. The Christian writers, even, and among these St. Augustine, admit that the Goths after their victories were not so cruel and rapacious as the Romans. Orosius, who lived in the beginning of the fifth century, relates, that a Goth of high rank, after the taking of Rome, having found in a house some gold and silver vessels which had been plundered from the church of St. Peter, gave notice to Alaric, and that the latter caused them to be sent back safe to the church. The account given of the arms and accoutrements of these northern tribes proves also that they were acquainted with the arts, and that they employed them to ornament their clothing. The fur dresses therefore may have been very handsome. [724] Glossarium, p. 1282. [725] Virgilii Georg. iii. 381.--Ovid. Trist. iii. 10, 19; v. 7, 49.--Ex Ponto, iv. 10, 1.--Justinus, ii. 2, p. 43.--Seneca, epist. 90.--Rutilii Itiner. ii. 49.--Claudian, viii. 466; xxvi. 481.--Ammian. Marcell. xxxi. 2.--Prudentius in Symmachum, ii. 695.--Isidor. Origin. xix. 23.--Sidon. Apollin. epist. i. 2, where he describes Theodoric II. king of the Goths, the son of Theodoric I. and brother of Thorismundus: _pellitorum turba satellitum_. In epist. vii. 9, the kings of the Goths are called _pelliti reges_. [726] Tacitus De Moribus German. 17. [727] Variegated furs of this kind sewed together are mentioned by Pollux, vii. 60, p. 729. [728] Plutarchus in Lycurgo. In like manner, the savages in the South Seas are acquainted with the art of giving more beauty and value to their ornaments made of feathers, shells, and the teeth of their enemies killed in battle. [729] Lagerbring Svea Rikes Hist. Part 2. p. 88. [730] At this period the Danes appear to have spent in eating and drinking the treasure they obtained in plundering; they employed their time only in hunting and breeding cattle, and clothed themselves in the skins of their sheep; but Canute endeavoured to introduce among them the Saxon manners and dress. He had invited into his kingdom from Lower Saxony, which at that time was considered the seat of the arts and sciences, and refined manners, a great many workmen and artists, a colony of whom he established in Roeskild, the capital. [731] Digestor. lib. xxxiv. [732] De Habitu Muliebri, cap. i. p. 551. [733] Charact. cap. 5 et 12. [734] Apophthegm. [735] See Herodian, ix. 13. [736] De Institut. Orat. xi. 3, 144. [737] Lex. 25, De Auro, Argento, Mundo. [738] See the instances quoted by G. S. Treuer in Anastasis Veteris Germani Germanæque Feminæ. Helmst. 1729, 4to. [739] Trist. v. 10, 31. For a complete history of their dress the reader must consult the authors quoted in Fabricii Bibliograph. Antiquaria, p. 861; and in Pitisci Lex. Antiq. v. Bracca. [740] In his Annotations on Catullus, p. 100. [741] In that learned and ingenious work, Erklärung der Vasengemälde, i. 3, p. 186. [742] Lib. xxxiv. cap. 14, § 41, p. 667. [743] Cap. 50, § 3. [744] Lib. xi. p. 755: ἀνδρόποδα καὶ δέρματα. [745] Histor. lib. iv. p. 306. [746] Tacitus, Annal. iv. 72. [747] Hist. Animal. xviii. 17. The singular word καναυτᾶνες, respecting which a great deal has been said by Pauw in his annotations to Phile de Animal. 48, p. 246, has lately been translated by Böttiger very happily, by the word _kaftane_, a kind of Turkish robe. In the present day these dresses of ceremony are of cotton, with flocks of silk worked into them, and for the most part are whitish, with a few rudely-formed pale yellow flowers: but the word formerly may have signified clothes in general, or fur clothing in particular, and perhaps the silk flocks may have been at first intended to represent fur. That furs at present are employed at Bassorah as presents, is proved by Professor Eichorn. [748] Vita Agesilai, p. 602. See also Hellenica, lib. iv. [749] Cyropædia, lib. viii., where he mentions χειρίδας δασείας. The Greeks and the Romans, however, did not wear gloves. [750] Ammian. Marcell. xxii. 5, p. 232. [751] Lib. v. 41. [752] Annal. lib. xiii. In Athenæus, Deipnos. v. p. 197, Callixenus describes Persian counterpanes with figures representing animals, but I do not know whether I ought not, with Valois, to consider them as painted leather, or rather worked tapestry. [753] Digest. lib. xxxix. tit. 4, 16, 7, or L. ult. § 7, de publicanis. In Gronovii Geographia Antiqua, p. 261, it is said that a great trade was carried on in Cappadocia with Babylonian leather. The _vestes leporinæ_ appear to have been made of the hair of the Angora rabbits. [754] L. 7, C. de excus. mun. or Cod. lib. 10, tit. 47, 7. [755] Chardin, iv. p. 245. [756] De Rebus Geticis, cap. 3, p. 612. [757] History of the Germans, vol. ii. [758] Cap. 5, p. 616. [759] Langebek Scriptores Rerum Danicarum, fol. ii. p. 111. [760] Torfæi Hist. Norveg. P. 2, p. 34. Compare Schlözer’s Nordische Geschichte in Algem. Welthistor. vol. xxxi. pp. 445, 458.--Having heard from M. Schlözer that the first certain traces of the Russian fur trade were to be found in the Russian Chronicles, works never yet used, I requested him, as the only person in Germany who could draw from these sources, to transmit to me what he had remarked on that subject. I am indebted to him, therefore, for the following valuable information, the result of a laborious comparison of various manuscript chronicles, for which he will no doubt receive the reader’s thanks. “The following passages are taken from the ten Russian Chronicles, the greater part of them still in manuscript, as a proof that from the ninth century tribute in furs was demanded from the people in Russia by their conquerors. I. “In the year 859, the Waringians, who came by sea, had tribute from the Tschudi, the Slavi, the Meri, and the Kriwitsches, a squirrel per man. The Chazares (in the Crimea) had tribute from the Poles (the inhabitants of the Ukrain), the Severians and the Wæitsches, a squirrel for each fireplace or hearth. “The squirrel _Sciurus vulgaris_ had in the old and new Russian language the five following names:--1st. ‘Bēla.’ This primitive word has been lost in the new Russian language, but is still preserved in the Chronicles, and in the adjectives ‘bēlij’ and ‘bēliczij mēch, Grauwerk’ (squirrel-skins). ‘Bēl’ in all the Sclavonic dialects signifies white. Can any connexion be discovered between the squirrel and a white colour? 2nd. ‘Bēlka,’ the diminutive of the former, is at present generally current. 3rd. ‘Wēkscha,’ from which is derived, 4th. ‘Wēkschitza,’ the diminutive. 5th. ‘Weweritza’ is old, but still exists in the Polish. “The variations of these words which occur in manuscripts are abundant, and some of them exceedingly laughable. One transcriber has ‘bēla;’ most of the rest add ‘wēkscha,’ ‘wēkschitza’ or ‘weweritza,’ as if ‘bēla’ were the adjective white. Two manuscripts say expressly, ‘bēla,’ that is ‘wēkscha.’ In one, however, from ‘bēla weweritza’ has been made ‘bēla ‘dewitza,’ a fair or beautiful maid. II. “In the year 883 Oleg went against the Drewians and Severians, whom he obliged to pay tribute, each a black marten. “‘Po czernē kunē’ stands in all the manuscripts; one only has the diminutive ‘kunitzē.’ Another bad manuscript, which has ‘konē,’ a black horse, is not worthy of any remark. III. “In 969 Svātoslav spoke to his mother and boyars: ‘I am not fond of Kief; I will reside in Pereyaslawetz on the Danube. There I shall be in the middle of my lands, to which every thing good in my territories flows: from the Greeks gold and _pavoloki_ (silk-stuffs?), and wine and fruit of every kind; from the Tscheches (Bohemians) and Hungarians silver and horses; from Russia _skora_, wax, honey, and servants.’ _Skora_, _skura_, furs (according to the Great Lexicon of the Russian Academy), from which is derived _skornak_, similar furs prepared. That coarse skins or furs (in Russian _schurka_), such as the _terga boum_, imposed by the Romans on the Frieslanders, are not here meant, is proved by a passage in the Chronicle of Nicon, vol. ii. p. 15, where it is related of a savage people, who lived far to the north on the Ural, that they gave _skora_ for a knife and a hatchet. “That marten-skins, as well as pieces of them (_mortki_) and of squirrel-skins, were used as money in Novogorod, till the year 1411, is well-known from Saml. Russ. Geschichte, vol. v. p. 430.” [761] Du Cange Glossarium. [762] De Animantibus Subter. p. 490. [763] Varro De Ling. Lat. lib. vi. p. 51. [764] Seneca, epist. 90. [765] Pallas, Novæ Species Quadr. e Glirium ord. 1778, p. 120. [766] Lib. viii. 37. [767] Pallas, p. 142. I shall here take occasion to remark, that the use of this animal’s skin, as well as the name, occurs in the eleventh century, in Bernardus Sylvester. [768] Lib. ii. ep. 2. [769] See a dissertation De l’Origine des Couleurs et des Métaux dans les Armoiries, added by Du Cange to his edition of Joinville. Paris, 1668, fol. p. 127. See also the article _Hermine_, in his Glossary to Geoffroy de Ville-Hardouin’s Conqueste de Constantinople; or the same in Diction. Etymolog. [770] Mullers Samlung Russischer Geschichte, vi. p. 491. Fischers Sibirische Geschichte. St. Petersb. 1768, 8vo, p. 290. [771] Du Cange, in his observations on Joinville, p. 137, thinks that the _zebelinæ_ or _sabelinæ pelles_ came from Zibel or Zibelet, a maritime town in Palestine, formerly called _Biblium_, because the skins were sent from it to Europe. This author meant _Byblus_, at present _Gibelet_ or _Gibeletto_; but this derivation appears to me highly improbable. [772] Epigram. x. 37, 18. [773] Trier’s Wapen-Kunst, p. 62.--Gatterers Heraldik. p. 41. [774] _Grauwerk veh_ or _feh_ means properly a kind of fur, composed of that of the Siberian squirrel and the marten joined together.--TRANS. [775] Antiquit. Ital. Medii Ævi, ii. p. 413. [776] See the passages quoted by Du Cange, and what Gesner has said in Histor. Animal. under the head _Cuniculus_. [777] Rapin’s England. [778] See this article in Du Cange and Hoffmann’s Lexicon. [779] Marco Polo. [780] Lib. ii. epist. 2. [781] Epig. 92: de birro castoreo. [782] De dignitate sacerdotali, cap. 5. [783] Lib. xvii. cap. 28. § 47; xxxii. cap. 9 and 10. [784] Lib. xix. cap. 27, p. 474. [785] Lib. xix. cap. 22. [786] Constantin. de Ceremoniis Aulæ Byzantinæ, i. p. 254: σκαραμάγγων καστώριον. The editor, Reiske, thinks that it may have been a pelisse, because Herodotus, iv. 109, speaks of the beaver’s skin being used for clothing. But how different must the old Sarmatian manners have been from the Byzantine! [787] Epist. 42. [788] Eginhartus, Vita Caroli Magni, cap. 23. [789] This anecdote is related by the monk of St. Gall, whose name is supposed to be Notker, in his book De Gestis Caroli Magni, ii. 27, printed in Bouquet, Historiens de la Gaule, v. p. 152. Whether Notker was the author of this chronicle or not, there can be no doubt that it was written after the year 883 and before 887, as has been proved by Basnage. _Pavontalis vestis_, a term used in this passage, does not always signify cloth wove or painted so as to resemble the colours of the peacock; the skin of the peacock was used for ornament; the people of all nations indeed decorated themselves with feathers till they became acquainted with dyeing. The art of those who prepared feathers was banished by that of the dyers. [790] Carmen De Carolo Magno, in Op. ii. p. 453, v. 225. [791] At the council of Aix-la-Chapelle in 817, where the dress of the monks was defined, it was ordered, “abbas provideat, unusquisque monachorum habeat ... _wantos_ in æstate, _muffulas_ in hieme vervecinas.” See Sirmond’s Concil. Antiq. Galliæ, Paris, 1629, fol. i. p. 442. _Wantus_ is still retained in the Netherlandish dialect, where _want_ signifies a glove without fingers, having only a place for the thumb; perhaps it is the same word as _want_, _wand_, or _gewand_, which formerly denoted every kind of woollen cloth. Hence is derived the French word _gand_; for _gwantus_ and _gantus_ were formerly used instead of _wantus_. It is equally certain that _muffula_ is of German extraction; _mouw_ at present in Dutch signifies a sleeve. But at what time that covering came into use into which both hands are thrust at present to secure them from the frost, and which according to the size now fashionable covers the whole body and is called a _muff_, I am not able to determine. [792] Leges Wallicæ, ed. Wottoni. Londini, 1730, fol. p. 261. [793] Landulphus, lib. ii. c. 18, in Murat. Rer. Ital. Script., tom. iv. [794] Adam Bremensis in Lindenbrogii Script. Rer. Germ., p. 67. [795] Albertus Aquensis, in Gesta Dei per Francos, i. p. 203. [796] Ivo Carn. Epistolæ 104. [797] Canon 12. [798] Albertus Aquensis, in Gesta Dei per Francos, i. p. 321. [799] In Labbei Biblioth. Nova, tom. ii. [800] Wilhelmus Neubrigensis, lib. iii. cap. 22. [801] Wilhelmus de Nangis, p. 346. Gottfr. de Bello Loco, cap. 8. Joinville Hist. de St. Louis, p. 118. [802] Barrington’s Obs. on the more Ancient Statutes, 4to, p. 216. [803] Constantini lib. de Ceremoniis Aulæ Byzantinæ, 1754. [804] Giulini, Mem. della Città di Milano, vi. p. 407. [805] Ib. viii. p. 443. STEEL. Steel is a carburet of iron, and possesses some remarkable properties, by which it is distinguished from common iron. It is of such a superior degree of hardness, that it is capable of filing the latter; it strikes fire with siliceous stones, and scratches the hardest glass; it is heavier, emits a stronger sound, exhibits on fracture a finer grain, assumes a brighter white lustre when polished, is susceptible of greater elasticity; becomes more slowly magnetic, but retains that power longer; does not so easily acquire rust; in the fire it assumes various strong tints, and when heated is speedily cooled in cold water, but is then harder, more brittle and less pliable. In consequence of these qualities it is fit for many uses to which common iron either cannot be applied, or is less proper. It is certain that the invention of steel is of very great antiquity. In the Old Testament, however, the mention of it is very doubtful, according to Professor Tychsen, whose remarks on this subject I subjoin in a note below[806]; but it appears that it was used as early as the time of Homer, and that the Greeks gave to it different names, one of the most common of which was _stomoma_, though it seems certain that this word did not so much denote steel itself as the steeled part of an instrument, or the operation of steeling. The name _chalybs_ was given to steel from the Chalybes, a people on the southern shore of the Pontus Euxinus, between Colchis and Paphlagonia, who had considerable mines, and in particular iron and steel works: though others, on the contrary, derive the name of the people from the principal article of their commerce. This derivation appears the more probable, as Justin says that a river of Spain, on which there were steel works, was named _Chalybs_, but at a much later period. Some also have ascribed to the Chalybes the invention of iron, which however is much older. But it seems to be less known that _adamas_ also at first denoted steel. This is expressly said by Hesychius, and many epithets derived from _adamas_ are applied to articles made of steel or of iron. Among these may be mentioned the helmet of Hercules, in Hesiod[807], and the so-called adamantine chains, gates, and bars of the poets, which in dictionaries are always explained as consisting of precious stones. It was not till a late period that this word was applied to the most costly of all the precious stones. In this sense it occurs neither in Homer, Hesiod, Herodotus, Orpheus, nor Dioscorides, though the first of these writers often describes various kinds of valuable ornaments. Goguet and others thence conclude that the diamond was not then known. At present I cannot enter into the history of this stone; but I must own, that I consider the knowledge of it to be older, and suspect that it was first introduced under another name, and is mentioned by Orpheus and some others under that of jasper (jaspis). This poet compares his jaspis to rock crystal, and says that it kindles fire in the same manner. That he knew how to use rock crystal as a burning-glass, he expressly tells us himself; but he certainly could not procure a diamond of such a size as to be able to burn with it. From its vitreous nature however he conjectured, and very properly, that it might be employed for that purpose. He calls the jaspis transparent, compares it to glass, and says that it had that sky colour which at present is named _color hyalinus_. This is probably the reason why Dioscorides and others call some kinds of jasper transparent and sky-coloured. The jaspis in the Revelation of St. John[808], described as a costly transparent crystalline kind of stone, was perhaps our diamond, which afterwards was everywhere distinguished by that name. The Romans borrowed from the Greeks the word _chalybs_; and in consequence of a passage in Pliny[809], many believe that they gave also to steel the name of _acies_, from which the Italians made their _acciajo_, and the French their _acier_. The word _acies_, however, denoted properly the steeled or cutting part only of an instrument. From this, in later times, was formed _aciarium_, for the steel which gave the instrument its sharpness, and also _aciare_ to steel[810]. At present there are two methods of making steel; the first of which is by fusion either from iron-stone or raw iron, and the second by cementation. I have never found in the works of the ancients any traces of steel prepared by cementation; nor am I acquainted with the antiquity of that process, though the ancients, without knowing it, employed it for brass. Spielman says[811], that Pliny in one part calls it _tostio_; but this word occurs neither in Pliny nor in any ancient writer. It is however possible that the word _torrere_ may somewhere signify cementation, but I have not yet met with an instance of it. The preparation however by fusion, as practised by the Chalybes, has been twice described by Aristotle; but as I have already given in another work[812] everything I was able to collect towards an explanation of these passages, I shall not here repeat it. I shall only remark, that the steel of the ancients, in consequence of not being cemented, suffered itself to be hammered, and was not nearly so brittle as the hardest with which we are acquainted at present. On the other hand, the singular method of preparing steel employed by the Celtiberians, in Spain, deserves to be here described. According to the account of Diodorus[813] and Plutarch[814], the iron was buried in the earth, and left in that situation till the greater part of it was converted into rust. What remained, without being oxydized, was afterwards forged and made into weapons, and particularly swords, with which they could cut asunder bones, shields, and helmets. However improbable this may appear, it is nevertheless the process still used in Japan; and Swedenborg has introduced it among the different methods of making steel[815]. The art of hardening steel by immersing it suddenly, when red-hot, in cold water, is very old[816]. Homer says, that when Ulysses bored out the eye of Polyphemus with a burning stake, it hissed in the same manner as water when the smith immerses in it a piece of red-hot iron, in order to harden it[817]. Sophocles uses the comparison of being hardened like immersed iron[818]; and Salmasius[819] quotes a work of an old Greek chemist, who treats on the method of hardening iron in India. It is also a very ancient opinion, that the hardening depends chiefly on the nature of the water. Many rivers and wells were therefore in great reputation, so that steel works were often erected near them, though at a considerable distance from the mines. Instances of this may be found in Pliny[820] and in Justin[821]. The more delicate articles of iron were not quenched in water, but in oil. An opinion, it is well known, long prevailed, that there were various fluids and mixtures which communicate to steel different degrees of hardness, and every artist thought he knew a peculiar hardening kind of water, the preparation of which he kept a secret. This notion is by some still maintained[822]; because there are often found stones cut by the ancients, which the moderns, on account of their hardness, as is believed, have seldom ventured to touch. Of this kind is the hardest porphyry. There are people who still endeavour to find out that hardening kind of water, in which the ancients prepared their tools for cutting such stones. According to Vasari[823], that water was actually discovered by the archduke Cosmo, in the year 1555. Among a large collection of stones he had a block of porphyry, from which he wished a bason to be made for a well, but was told by the most experienced artists that it was impossible. On this, says Vasari, in order to render the work possible, he prepared from certain herbs, which he does not name, a water wherein the red-hot tools were quenched, and by these means so hardened, that they were capable of cutting porphyry. With tools tempered in this manner the artist Francesco del Tadda not only made the required bason, but various other curious articles[824]. Winkelman, therefore, does injustice to Vasari when he says, “Vasari, in pretending that Cosmo archduke of Tuscany discovered a water for making porphyry soft, betrays childish credulity.” On the contrary, he very properly asserts that there is no water of such a quality as to soften porphyry; though Porta and many old writers imagined that they were acquainted with one capable of producing on that stone, which they considered as a species of marble, the same effects as an acid does on the latter. But Vasari says nothing of the kind. After Tadda’s death, the art of cutting porphyry came to Raphael Curradi, who communicated to Dominico Corsi this secret, which was afterwards employed by Cosimo Silvestrini[825]. I, however, agree in opinion with Winkelman and Fiorillo, our learned connoisseur in the arts, that the method of working porphyry was known in every age, even in the most barbarous, though artists, no doubt, preferred working on other stones which were less brittle and hard. We know however from the latest researches, that all the kinds of hardening water hitherto invented are in nothing superior to common water; and that in hardening more depends on the nature of the steel, or rather on the degree of heat, than on the water; although it is true that the workman does right when he adds to the water a thin cake of grease, or pours over it hot oil, through which the steel must necessarily pass before it enters the water, for by these means it is prevented from acquiring cracks and flaws. The invention of converting bar iron into steel by dipping it into other fused iron, and suffering it to remain there several hours, is commonly ascribed to Reaumur[826]. But this process is mentioned by Agricola, Imperati and others, as a thing well-known and practised in their time. Pliny, Daimachus[827] and other ancient writers mention various countries and places which, in their time, produced excellent steel. Among the dearest kinds were the _ferrum Indicum_ and _Sericum_. The former appears to be the _ferrum candidum_, a hundred talents of which were given as a present to Alexander in India[828]. Is it not probable that this was the excellent kind of steel still common in that country, and known under the name of _wootz_, some pieces of which were sent from Bombay in the year 1795 to the Royal Society of London? Its silver-coloured appearance when polished may have, perhaps, given occasion to the epithet of _candidum_. The method of preparing it is still unknown, but it is supposed to be a kind of fused steel[829]. This however is a mere conjecture, unsupported by any proofs[830]. At what time was damasked steel obtained from the Levant? [Three kinds of steel are now principally manufactured; bar or blistered steel, shear steel and cast steel. The bar or blistered steel is made by the process of cementation: this consists in putting bars of the purest malleable iron alternately with layers of charcoal or soot into a proper furnace; the air being carefully excluded and the whole kept at a red heat for several days. By this process the carbon combines with the iron, altering its texture from fibrous to granular or crystalline, and rendering the surface blistered. The action of the carbon occasions fissures and cavities in the substance of the bars, rendering them unfit for tool-making, until they are condensed and rendered uniform by the operation of _tilting_, i. e. compression by a powerful hammer worked by machinery. Shear steel is made by breaking up bars of blistered steel into lengths of about 18 inches, and binding four or six of them together with a steel rod, and then heating them to a full welding heat, the surface being covered with fine clay or sand to prevent oxidation. They are then drawn out into a bar, hammered, tilted and rolled. In this state it is susceptible of a much finer polish, and is also more tenacious and malleable, and fit for making strong springs, knives, &c. Cast steel, which was first made by Mr. Huntsman at Attercliff, Sheffield, in 1770, is made by melting blistered steel, casting it into ingots and rolling it into bars. In this condition its texture is much more uniform, closer and finer grained. The different degrees of hardness required for steel are given by the process called tempering, which is effected by heating the steel up to a certain temperature, and then quenching it suddenly in cold water. Its hardness and brittleness are thus much increased, but it may be again softened by exposure to heat simply.] FOOTNOTES [806] In regard to the hardening of iron and the quenching of it in water, nothing, as far as I know, occurs in the Hebrew text of the Scriptures. The passages where it seems to be mentioned are, Isaiah, chap. xliv. ver. 12. “The smith bends the iron, works it in a fire of coals, and forms it with the hammer; he labours on it with a strong arm,” &c. according to the translation of Michaelis. It may indeed be translated otherwise, but it certainly alludes to the formation of an image of metal. The words, chap. liv. ver. 16, are still more general. Iron, _barzel_, often occurs, and in some passages indeed steel may be understood under this name; for example, in Ezekiel, chap. xxvii. ver. 19, _ferrum fabrefactum_, or, according to Michaelis and others, sabre blades from Usal (Sanaa in Yemen). A pretty clear indication of steel is given in Jeremiah, chap. xv. ver. 12: “Iron from the north,” which is described there as the hardest. To the north of Judæa was situated Chalybia, the ancient country of steel. It appears that the Hebrews had no particular name for steel, which they perhaps comprehended under the term _barzel_, or distinguished it only by the epithet Northern, especially as the later Jews have for it no other name than אסטמא, _istoma_, which however is nothing else than the Greek στόμωμα, and signifies rather steeling or hardening. _Chalamisch_ is certainly a hard kind of stone; granite or porphyry, according to Michaelis, who treats expressly of it in Supplem. ad Lex. Hebr. N. 740. [807] Scutum Herculis, x. 137. [808] Chap. xxi. ver. 11, 18, 19. [809] Lib. xxxiv. sect. 41. p. 666. “Stricturæ vocantur hæ omnes, quod non in aliis metallis a stringenda acie vocabulo imposito. Et fornacum maxima differentia est; nucleus quidem ferri excoquitur in his ad indurandam aciem; aliquæ modo ad densandas incudes, malleorumve rostra.” According to my opinion, _stricturæ_ was the name given to pieces of steel completely manufactured and brought to that state which rendered them fit for commerce. At present steel comes from Biscay in cakes, from other places in bars, and both these formerly were called _stricturæ_, because they were employed chiefly for giving sharpness to instruments or tools, that is, for steeling them. In speaking of other metals, Pliny says that the finished productions at the works were not called _stricturæ_ (this was the case, for example, with copper), though sharpness could be given to instruments with other metals also. The words of Pliny last quoted are read different ways, and still remain obscure. I conjecture that he meant to say that some steel works produced things which were entirely of steel, and that others were employed only in steeling. I shall here remark that the _stricturæ ferri_ remind us of the _strigiles auri_: such was the name given to native pieces of gold, which without being smelted were used in commerce.--Plin. xxxiii. 3. p. 616. [810] See Vossii Etymol. and Martinii Lex. Philolog. [811] Institut. Chimiæ, p. 252. He refers to lib. xxxiii. cap. 4. [812] In my observations on Aristot. Auscult. Mirab. cap. 49. [813] Diod. lib. v. cap. 33. [814] Plut. de Garrul. [815] De Ferro, i. p. 194. See also Watson’s Chem. Essays, i. p. 220. Of the iron works in Japan I know nothing further than what has been said by Thunberg in his Travels. That country possesses very little of this metal: but the sabres made there are incomparable; without hurting the edge one can easily cut through a nail with them; and, as the Japanese say, cleave asunder a man at one blow. These sabres are often sold for fifty, seventy, and even a hundred dollars. [816] Lord Bacon seems not to have been of this opinion; see his Silva Silvarum, cent. i. § 86. But this method of hardening was usual in the eleventh or twelfth century; for it is described by Theophilus Presbyter, lib. iii. cap. 19. [817] Odyss. ix. 391. [818] Ajax, 720. [819] Exercitat. Plin. p. 763. [820] Lib. xxxiv. 14, p. 666. [821] Lib. xliv. p. 620. [822] [There can be no question that the hardening or tempering effect produced by the sudden immersion of heated steel in fluids has no relation to the quality of the fluid, save as regards its conducting power of heat. The more suddenly the heat is abstracted from the metal, the greater is the amount of hardness and brittleness. Mercury has been found superior to any other fluid for this purpose, undoubtedly because it is so good a conductor of heat.] [823] Le Vite de Pittori. Bologna, 1681, 4to, i. p. 11. [824] Some account of this artist is given in J. C. Bulengeri de Pictura, lib. ii. cap. 7, in Gronovii Thesaurus Antiq. Græc. ix. p.