121. _Cochlearia._

Sum cochleis habilis, sed nec minus utilis ovis; Num quid scis potius cur cochleare vocer? [1010] Plin. Hist. Natur. xxi. 14. Columella, ix. 15, 13. That the _ligula_ was smaller than the _cochlear_ is proved by Martial, viii. 23. [1011] See this word in Pitisci, Lexicon Antiq. Rom. [1012] Clemens Alexandr. Pædagog. lib. ii. p. 161. Posidonius relates, in Athenæus, iv. 13, p. 151, that the Gauls used to take roast meat in their hand and tear it to pieces with their teeth, or to cut it with a small knife which each carried in his girdle. This was told as a thing uncommon to the Greeks. Baumgarten, who quotes this passage in Algem. Welgeschichte, xvi. p. 657, adds, that Posidonius said also that the Gauls had bread so flat and hard that it could be easily broken. But this circumstance I cannot find in Athenæus. [1013] Sat. v. 65. [1014] This word, according to the Swedish dictionaries, signifies thin cakes, hard and crisp. [1015] Homeri Odyss. xiv. 453. [1016] De Arte Amandi, iii. 755. [1017] Reisen, i. p. 268. [1018] Rec. d’Antiq. iii. p. 312. tab. lxxxiv. [1019] Bulletin des Fouilles, i. p. 17; ii. p. 131. [1020] Galeoti Martii de Dictis et Factis Regis Matthiæ Liber. This work has also been printed in Schwandtneri Script. Rerum Hungar. tom. i. p. 548. [1021] Coryate, in the year 1608, travelled for five months, through France, Italy, Switzerland, and a part of Germany. An account of this tour was published by him, in 1611, under the singular title of Crudities, a new edition of which appeared in 1776. He travelled afterwards to the East Indies, and in 1615 wrote in that country some letters which may be seen in Purchas his Pilgrims, vol. ii.; also in the second edition of the Crudities published in 1776. In page 90 of the Crudities the author says, “Here j will mention a thing that might have been spoken of before in discourse of the first Italian towne. J observed a custome in all those Italian cities and townes through the which j passed, that is not used in any other country that j saw in my travels, neither do j thinke that any other nation of Christendome doth use it, but only Italy. The Italian, and also most strangers that are commorant in Italy, do alwaies at their meales use a little forke when they cut their meat. For while with their knife which they hold in one hand they cut the meate out of the dish, they fasten their forke, which they hold in their other hand, upon the same dish; so that whatsoever he be that sitting in the company of any others at meale, should unadvisedly touch the dish of meate with his fingers from which all at the table doe cut, he will give occasion of offence unto the company, as having transgressed the lawes of good manners, insomuch that for his error he shall be at least brow beaten if not reprehended in wordes. This form of feeding j understand is generally used in all places of Italy; their forkes being for the most part made of yron or steele, and some of silver, but those are used only by gentlemen. The reason of this their curiosity is, because the Italian cannot by any meanes indure to have his dish touched with fingers, seeing all men’s fingers are not alike cleane. Hereupon j myselfe thought good to imitate the Italian fashion by this forked cutting of meate, not only while j was in Italy, but also in Germany, and oftentimes in England since j came home, being once quipped for that frequent using of my forke by a certain learned gentleman, a familiar friend of mine, one Mr. Laurence Whitaker, who in his merry humour doubted not to call me at table _furcifer_, only for using a forke at feeding, but for no other cause.” [The use of forks was at first much ridiculed in England, as an effeminate piece of finery; in one of Beaumont and Fletcher’s plays, “your fork-carving traveller” is spoken of with much contempt; and Ben Jonson has joined in the laugh against them in his Devil’s an Ass, Act. v. Scene 4. Meercraft says to Gilthead and Sledge:-- “Have I deserved this from you two? for all My pains at court, to get you each a patent. “_Gilthead._ For what? “_Meercraft._ Upon my project of the _forks_. “_Sledge._ _Forks!_ What be they? “_Meercraft._ The laudable use of forks, Brought into custom here as they are in Italy, To the sparing of napkins.”] [1022] Fischer’s Reise nach Madrid, p. 238. LOTTERY. TONTINE. At present there are two kinds of lottery in Europe. One is called the Italian or Genoese lotto, or merely the lotto; the other is the common lottery well known in England. Of the former, which has been long proved to be attended with great deception, and must soon be universally acknowledged to be hurtful, I do not mean here to treat, but only of the latter, which at any rate may be honourable or harmless, if we do not take into account the delusion it occasions to credulous and ignorant people, by exciting hopes which have little probability in their favour. I however do not promise a complete history of this invention: it experienced so many changes before it acquired its present form, that to give a full account of them would be tiresome to me as well as to the reader. I shall not either, as some have done, reckon among the first traces of lotteries every division of property made by lot, otherwise it might be said, that Joshua partitioned the promised land into lottery-prizes, before it was conquered. In my opinion the peculiarity of lotteries consists in this, that numbers are distributed gratuitously, or, as in our public lotteries, for a certain price, and it is then left to chance to determine what numbers are to obtain the prizes, the value of which is previously settled. The various conditions and changes invented by ingenuity to entice people to purchase shares, and to conceal and increase the gain of the undertakers, are not here taken into consideration, because they do not appear to be essential. In the whole history of antiquity, I find nothing which has a greater resemblance to our lotteries than the _congiaria_ of the Romans; and I am inclined to think that the latter furnished the first hint for the establishment of the former. Rich persons at Rome, as is well known, and particularly the emperors, when they wished to gain or to strengthen the attachment of the people, distributed among them presents, consisting of eatables and other expensive articles, which were named _congiaria_. In general, tokens or tickets called _tesseræ_[1023] were given out, and the possessors of these, on presenting them at the store or magazine of the donor, received those things which they announced. In many cases these tickets were distributed _viritim_, that is, to every person who applied for them; and in that case these donations had a resemblance to our distributions of bread, but not to our lotteries, in which chance must determine the number of those who are to participate in the things distributed. But in the course of time it became customary to call the people together, and to throw among them, from a stage, the articles intended for distribution, in the same manner as money is scattered among the populace at the coronation of the emperor, and on other solemnities. Such things, in this case, were called _missilia_, and belonged to those who had the good fortune to catch them. But as oil, wine, corn and other articles of the like kind, could not be distributed by throwing them in this manner, and as some articles were so much injured by the too great eagerness of the people, that they could be of little or no use, tokens or tickets were thrown out in their stead. At first these were square pieces of wood or metal, but sometimes also balls of wood inscribed with the name of the article which the possessor was to receive from the magazine[1024]. Like bank-notes they were payable to the bearer; and those who had obtained _tesseræ_ were allowed to transfer or to sell them to others. This is proved by a passage in Juvenal[1025], where allusion however is made only to the _tesseræ frumentariæ_, which were not thrown out, but distributed. Imitations of these Roman _congiaria_, but indeed on a very reduced scale, have been employed in modern times by princes and princesses, in order to amuse themselves with distributing small presents to their courtiers. For this purpose various trinkets or toys are marked with numbers; these numbers are written upon separate tickets, which are rolled up and put into a small basket or basin. Each of the company then draws one out, and receives as a present the article marked with the same number. These small _congiaria_ were formerly called in German _glückstöpfe_, or _glückshäfen_; and in the course of time the present lotteries took their rise from them. In Italy, where commerce, as is well known, was first formed into a regular system, and where the principal mercantile establishments and useful regulations were invented, the merchants or shopkeepers, even in the middle ages, were accustomed, in order that they might sell their wares in a speedier manner and with more advantage, to convert their shops into a _glücksbude_, where each person for a small sum of money was allowed to draw a number from the _glückstöpfe_ (jar of fortune), which entitled him to the article written upon it. At first governments gave themselves very little trouble about this mode of selling merchandise. But as the shopkeepers gained excessive profits, and cheated the credulous people by setting on their wares an extravagant price, which was concealed by the blanks, these _glückshäfen_ were forbidden, or permitted only under strict inspection, and in the course of time on paying a certain sum to the poor, or to the sovereign. In Germany they are still retained at many of the annual fairs; but in most countries they are subject to many limitations. From these _glückshäfen_ were produced our lotteries, when articles of merchandise were no longer employed as prizes, but certain sums of money, the value of which was determined by the amount of the money received, after the expenses and gain required by the undertakers were deducted, and when the tickets were publicly drawn by charity-boys blindfolded. As these lotteries could not be conducted without defrauding the adventurers, it was at first believed, through old-fashioned conscientiousness, that it was unlawful to take advantage of the folly and credulity of the people, but for pious or charitable purposes. Lotteries were then established by private persons, and in the course of time even by governments; and the clear gain was applied to the purpose of portioning poor young women, of redeeming slaves, of forming funds for the indigent, and to other objects of beneficence. It was also hoped that these public games of hazard would banish other kinds still more dangerous; and no one suspected that the exposing of tickets for sale, and the division of them, so that one could purchase an eighth or even a smaller share, would maintain and diffuse the taste of the public for gambling. This, however, increased; and the profit of lotteries became so great, that princes and ministers were induced to employ them as an operation of finance, and to hold the bank which always enriched the undertakers. People were then forbidden to purchase tickets in foreign lotteries, that the money won from the adventurers might pass into the sovereign’s treasury, or at any rate be retained in the country; and in order that tickets might be disposed of sooner and with more certainty, many rulers were so shameless as to pay the salaries of their servants partly in tickets, and to compel guild companies and societies to expend in lotteries what money they had saved[1026]. Of the oldest lotteries among the Italians I have not been able to find any account. Varchi, who wrote about the year 1537, relates that during a great scarcity of money at Florence in 1530, a lottery was established for the benefit of the state, and that the price of a ticket was a ducat. He however does not employ the term lottery, but uses the words _un lotto_, and calls a ticket _polizza_, a term which, as is well known, is generally used in regard to insurance. Le Bret says, that at Venice, in 1572, the inspection of lotteries was entrusted to the _proveditori del commune_; but as he does not mention the historian from whom this account is borrowed, the word which he translates lottery cannot be known. We nevertheless learn from his account, that this game was established at Venice in the middle of the sixteenth century, and placed under the inspection of the government. It is certain that the chance game which gave rise to lotteries was brought from Italy to France under the name of _blanque_, a word formed from the Italian _bianca_. The greater part of the tickets drawn were always white paper, _carta bianca_, consequently blanks; and because that word occurred oftenest in drawing, it gave rise to the general appellation. Hence also is derived the phrase _trouver blanque_, to obtain nothing, to get a blank, or to lose. At the time Pasquier wrote[1027], that is, in the last half of the sixteenth century, the name _numero_ was also usual, because the numbers of the tickets, which were then called _devises_, were announced in the time of drawing. This name, instead of _nombre_, confirms the Italian origin. As each person in the time of drawing was attentive to his number, the phrase _entendre le numero_ was applied to those who knew or did not forget their numbers. Hence the expression, as Pasquier remarks, _Il entend le numero_, which is still said of those who know their own interest, or understand how to pursue it. Frisch and others, therefore, in their dictionaries have derived it improperly from the numbers with which merchants marked their goods. In France also the first _blanques_ (lotteries) had no other prizes than articles of merchandise; and on that account they were set on foot only by merchants. But in the year 1539 Francis I. endeavoured to turn them to his own advantage by imitating the public establishment of them usual at Venice, Florence, and Genoa. He permitted these games of chance under the inspection of certain members of the government, with a view, as was pretended, of banishing deceptive and pernicious games of chance, on condition that for every ticket, _devise_ or _mise_[1028], a _teston de dix sols six deniers_ should be given to the king. But however small the sum required may have been, this _blanque_ was not filled up in the course of two years, and the king was obliged to recommend it by an order issued in the month of February 1541; yet it is not known whether it was ever completed[1029]. In the years 1572 and 1588, Louis de Gonzague, duke de Nivernois and Rethelois, established a _blanque_ at Paris, for the purpose of giving marriage portions to poor virtuous young women belonging to his estates. No lottery was ever drawn with so much ceremony and parade. Before the drawing, which began every year on Palm Sunday, mass was said; the servants employed were obliged to swear that they would act in a faithful and impartial manner; and even Sextus V. gave to those who should promote this good work remission of their sins. The prize tickets were inscribed as follows: _Dieu vous a élue_, or _Dieu vous console_. The former ensured to the young woman who drew it 500 francs, which were paid to her on her wedding-day; the latter was the inscription of blanks, but suggested the hope of being more fortunate the year following[1030]. This example induced ladies of quality from time to time to establish similar _blanques_ (lotteries) for benevolent purposes. Some destined the profit to the building or repairing of certain churches and convents. Three ladies, whose names history has not thought proper to communicate, set on foot a lottery containing a certain number of tickets at forty sous each, and employed the gain in redeeming, by means of the Mathurines or Patres, as they were called, persons who had fallen into slavery among the Turks. On one occasion a _blanque_ or lottery of a very singular nature was instituted by some ladies, in order to raise a fund for their spiritual guide or confessor, who had been chosen bishop, but had no property, that they might purchase for him a carriage and horses, with every thing necessary to support his ecclesiastical dignity. Each of these grateful ladies was obliged to procure or present to him the article announced by the ticket she had drawn, “pour le remercier, par cette petite largesse, pour le bon ordre qu’il avoit apporté à leurs consciences.” But these games of chance occur much oftener in the French history, as the means employed to make valuable presents to ladies and other persons of distinction. The largest, in all probability, is that by which Cardinal Mazarine endeavoured to increase his splendour, and render himself more popular among the courtiers. The tickets were distributed as presents; each was a prize, and the prizes were rarities of various kinds, and of different values. This, says the historian, was perhaps the first time that fortune did good to all and hurt to no one[1031]. That these games of chance became in the middle of the seventeenth century lotteries, in the proper sense of the word, is unanimously asserted by all the French historians who have touched on this subject, though in some circumstances they differ from each other. In the year 1644, Laurence Tonti came from Naples to Paris, and during a scarcity of money which then prevailed, proposed that kind of life-rents or annuities which at present are named after him _Tontines_, though they were used in Italy long before his time. But after tedious disputes in regard to his proposal, which was at length rejected, he gave in its stead a new plan for a large _blanque_, or lottery, which in 1656 obtained the royal approbation. It was to consist of 50,000 tickets, each at two _Louis d’ors_, so that the whole receipt would amount to 1,100,000 livres; but it is to be recollected that a _Louis d’or_ at that time was only eleven livres. Of this sum 540,000 livres were to be deducted for building a stone bridge and an aqueduct. The expenses of the _blanque_ were estimated at 60,000 livres, and the remaining 500,000 were to be divided into prizes, the highest of which was 30,000 livres. But this _blanque royale_, for so it was called, was never filled up, and consequently never drawn. On this account it was found necessary to construct a wooden bridge in the room of that which had been burnt. As complaints were often made by mercantile people in regard to the disposal of merchandise in this manner, which had been hitherto permitted, and as this practice had evidently injured the _blanque royale_, the former in the month of January 1658 was entirely forbidden. In the year 1660, when the conclusion of peace and the marriage of Louis XIV. were celebrated, the first lottery on the plan of Tonti was set on foot at Paris. It was drawn publicly under the inspection of the police. A ticket cost only a _Louis d’or_, and the highest prize was 100,000 livres. This was won by the king himself; but he would not receive it, and left it to the next lottery in which he had no ticket[1032]. This was soon followed by several others. On that account, in the year 1661, all private lotteries were expressly forbidden under severe penalties, and this prohibition was repeated in 1670, 1681, 1687, and 1700[1033]. Since that time there have been no other lotteries but the _loteries royales_, the profits of which were, in general, applied to public buildings, as was the case in regard to the magnificent church of St. Sulpice, and on that account they met with great support. Sauval, and some others, ascribe the introduction of lotteries to a person from Lyons, named De Chuyes, who by profession was a gold-beater, but had a great knowledge of trade. He afterwards undertook long sea voyages, and published a book entitled, La Guide des Chemins de Paris, redigée par ordre alphabetique. His name however does not occur in any of the king’s patents, but that only of Tonti. This De Chuyes, according to Sauval, first proposed the name _lottery_, then usual in Italy, which however the other persons concerned did not approve. In particular, the well-known De Vaugelas, who had been chosen director of the undertaking, and who thereby hoped to pay his debts, strongly opposed it, and recommended the title _blanque royale_, though, in consequence of the many deceptions practised in the old games of chance known under that name, it was not likely to become popular. This much is certain, that the name lottery was first used in France about the year 1658; for the order before-mentioned of 1656 has the name _blanque_, but in that of 1658, the word lottery occurs for the first time, and in that of 1661 we find _espèce de blanque et loterie_, and in that of 1670, _loteries et blanques_. It is certain that the name was much earlier used in Italy and other countries, though Varchi employs only the word _Lotto_. I am acquainted with no older mention of the name Lottery than that in the passage quoted by Menage, from a letter of Christopher Longolius, or, as he is called by the French, Longueuil. It certainly seems to show that lotteries, in the first half of the sixteenth century, were new; but I doubt much whether it can be proved from it that the name is of French, and not Italian extraction, as Menage thinks, because Longolius generally gave himself out as a Frenchman, though he was born at Mechlin in 1490. As the name is much newer in France, and as the letter was written from Padua, where Longolius died in 1522, it is far more probable that the name had its origin in Italy[1034]. In the last place, this letter was written a short time before Longolius’s death; for he mentions the election of pope Adrian, which took place the same year. The name lottery has been used also by Simon Majolus, who describes the oldest manner in which it was conducted[1035]; but I have not been able to find at what time this Italian ecclesiastic wrote, though in all probability about the end of the sixteenth century. However it is still doubtful whether he was the author of the portion of the work referred to; for it is known that the greater part of the Dies Caniculares, published under his name, was written by Petrus Draudius, who died in the year 1630. The word _Lot_, in many ancient as well as modern languages, and particularly in the English, Swedish, Danish and Dutch, has the same signification as _sors_, and is evidently the _lotto_ of the Italians, and the _los_ or _loos_ of the Germans; consequently there is no proof that the word lottery is of French extraction, as Menage has supposed[1036]. In England the first lottery was proposed in the years 1567 and 1568, and, as the historian says, held at the west door of St. Paul’s Cathedral, and was drawn day and night[1037], from the 11th of January 1569, to the 6th of May the same year. It contained 400,000 tickets, at ten shillings each. The prizes consisted partly in money, and partly of silver plate and other articles. The net profit was to be employed in improving the English harbours. The Antiquarian Society of London have still in their possession the original scheme, as it was then printed[1038]; from which it appears that the name lottery was at that time used in England. [In the year 1612 a lottery was drawn for the benefit of the English colonies in Virginia; permission was granted by special favour of king James I.; the largest prize in which, being silver-plate to the value of 4000 crowns, fell to the share of a tailor. In 1620 lotteries were suspended, in consequence of a representation from the House of Commons that they were prejudicial to the morals of the nation; but one was afterwards permitted in 1630, by a special license from king Charles I., in aid of the expenses of a project for conveying water to London; and Anderson[1039] says that this is the first time that lotteries are mentioned either in the _Fœdera_ or _Statutes_. In the reign of Charles II., one of the methods resorted to by that monarch to reward the officers who had remained faithful to his cause, was to give them grants of plate and other valuables, with permission to dispose of them by a lottery. This gave rise to various schemes, under the titles of royal-oak and twelve-penny lotteries, &c.; which were sanctioned by government, as we learn by the following advertisement, which appeared soon after the Restoration:--“This is to give notice, that any persons who are desirous to farm any of the counties within the kingdom of England or dominion of Wales, in order to the setting up of a plate lottery, or any other lottery whatsoever, may repair to the lottery-office in Mermaid-court, over against the mews, where they may contract with the trustees commissioned by his majesty’s letters patent for the management of the said patent, on behalf of the truly loyal indigent officers.” In 1694, a loan of a million was raised by the sale of tickets at £10 each, the prizes in which were funded at the rate of 4 per cent. for sixteen years certain. In the reign of queen Anne lotteries were forbidden as hurtful, but soon after they were again permitted under a variety of conditions, and were commonly for terminable annuities, to which both blanks and prizes became entitled at different rates; thus in 1710, the lottery consisted of 150,000 tickets, valued at £10 each; every ticket being entitled to an annuity for thirty-two years, the blanks at 14_s._ per annum, and the prizes to various annuities, from £5 to £1000. Tickets appear to have been first divided into shares during the administration of Sir Robert Walpole. In 1746, a loan of three millions was raised on 4 per cent. annuities, and a lottery of 50,000 tickets at £10 each; and in 1747, one million was raised by the sale of 100,000 tickets, the prizes in which were founded in perpetual annuities, at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum. During the same century government constantly availed itself of this means to raise money for various public works, of which the British Museum and Westminster-bridge are well-known examples. Probably the last occasion on which this taste for gambling was thus made use of occurred in 1780, when every subscriber of £1000 towards a loan of twelve millions, at 4 per cent., received a bonus of four lottery tickets, the intrinsic value of each of which was £10. In 1778 an act was passed obliging every person who kept a lottery-office to take out an annual license, and to pay £50 for the same, a measure which reduced the number of lottery-offices from 400 to 51. In 1823, however, the last act sanctioned by parliament for the sale of lottery tickets, contained provisions for putting down all state and private lotteries, and for rendering illegal the sale, in this kingdom, of all tickets or shares of tickets in any foreign lottery.] A lottery was drawn at Amsterdam in 1549, the profit of which was employed in building a church steeple[1040]; and another was drawn at Delft in 1595. I was informed by Professor Fiorillo that there is still preserved at Amsterdam, in the hospital for old men, _oude mannen huys_, a beautiful painting by David Vinckenbooms, eight feet in height and fourteen in breadth, which represents the drawing of a lottery in the night-time. The artist is said to have been born in the year 1578. This game of chance must have been known also at an early period in Germany; for, in the year 1521, a lottery was established by the council at Osnaburg, and is mentioned in a work published in 1582; but the prizes consisted only in articles of merchandise. The citizens of Hamburg having proposed a lottery, according to the Dutch manner, for the purpose of building a house of correction, the magistrates gave their approbation in the month of November 1611, and in 1615 it was drawn. At Nuremberg the first lottery seems to have been drawn in the year 1715. At any rate, Von Murr, in his Description of the remarkable things in that city, mentions an engraving with the following title: “Representation of the _Lotto publico_, which was drawn in the large hall of the council-house, at Nuremberg, anno 1715.” It is certain that we are not here to understand the so-called Italian _lotto_, but a common lottery, as the former was not introduced into Germany till a much later period. At Berlin the first lottery was drawn in the month of July 1740. It consisted only of one class of prizes, as was probably the case with all lotteries at first. It contained 20,000 tickets, each of which cost five dollars; so that the whole income amounted to 100,000 dollars. There were 4028 prizes, the largest of which was a house worth 24,000 dollars. The ill-famed Italian or Genoese lottery was, as its name shows, an invention of the Genoese[1041], and arose from the mode in which the members of the senate were elected; for when that republic existed in a state of freedom, the names of the eligible candidates were thrown into a vessel called _seminario_, or, in modern times, into a wheel of fortune; and during the drawing of them it was customary for people to lay bets in regard to those who might be successful. That is to say, one chose the names of two or three _nobili_, for these only could be elected, and ventured upon them, according to pleasure, a piece of money; while, on the other hand, the opposite party, or the undertaker of the bank, who had the means of forming a pretty accurate conjecture in regard to the names that would be drawn, doubled the stakes several times. Afterwards the state itself undertook the bank for these bets, which was attended with so much advantage; and the drawing of the names was performed with great ceremony. The _venerabile_ was exposed, and high mass was celebrated, at which all the candidates were obliged to be present. A member of the senate, named Benedetto Gentile, is said to have first introduced this lottery, in the year 1620; and it is added, that the name of Gentile having never been drawn, the people took it into their heads that he and his names had been carried away by the devil, in the same manner as Schwartz, the inventor of gunpowder, as a punishment for this unfortunate invention. But at length, the wheel being taken to pieces in order to be mended, the name, which by some accident had never been drawn, was found concealed in it. Hence it may be easily seen how this game of chance was formed, by introducing numbers instead of the names of the nobility. However, if I am not mistaken, it continued to be peculiar to the Genoese till nearly the middle of the eighteenth century. But as all travellers spoke of this _lotto di Genoa_, and many wished to try their fortune in it, the Genoese, for their own benefit, established in many large towns commissioners, whose business was to dispose of tickets, and to pay the prizes to those who had been fortunate. As an immoderate spirit of gambling was thus excited at Rome, Pope Benedict XIII., who sat on the papal throne from 1724 to 1730, forbade the Genoese lottery, under the pain of banishment to those who gambled in it, and to those who received the money. As this threat however did not remove the evil, the succeeding pope, Clement XII., who died in 1740, followed the example of our German princes, and caused a lottery to be established even at Rome. Since that time, permission for the same purpose has been renewed from year to year. It was not till a much later period that the Genoese lottery was introduced into Germany. According to the account of J. A. Kalzabigi, who had made himself known in Italy by many projects, and was appointed a Prussian privy-counsellor of commerce and finance, the first was drawn at Berlin on the 31st of August 1763. In 1769, one was established in the principality of Anspach and Bayreuth, where it was continued till the year 1788. In 1774, a person named Wenceslaus Maurer came to Neufchatel, with permission from the king, and established a _Lotto_ there much against the will of the prudent inhabitants; but some one having won a capital prize, for which the undertakers ought to have paid 30,000 francs, after procrastinating as long as they could, under various pretences, they at length became bankrupts, and made their escape from the country. These pernicious lotteries continued till the end of the eighteenth century, when they were almost everywhere abolished and forbidden. They are now permitted only in a very few states, which are not able to give up the paltry income derived from them. To the honour of the Hanoverian government, no _Lotto_ was ever introduced into it, though many foreigners have offered large sums for permission to cheat the people in this manner. Those who wish to see the prohibitions issued against the _Lotto_, after making a great part of the people lazy, indigent and thievish, may find them by the help of the index in Schlötzer’s Staats-Anzeigen. Si son exécrable mémoire Parvient à la posterité, C’est que le crime, aussi bien que la gloire, Conduit à l’immortalité. [The only lottery at present existing in England under the sanction of the government is the art-union of London. The first institution of this kind in Great Britain originated at Edinburgh in 1836, from the models existing in Prussia, formed under the patronage of the king and his minister Von Humboldt, about the year 1825. The money annually subscribed is expended in pictures, sculptures, &c. It is divided by the committee into several portions or prizes, from £10 to £400, and on a certain day the prizes are distributed among the subscribers in the ordinary way. The prize-holders are then allowed to select works of art to the value of their respective prizes from any of the five annual exhibitions of works of art in the metropolis for the current year. A portion of the total sum subscribed is set aside and applied to the purpose of engraving and printing some work of art, a copy of which is given to each subscriber. Hence, by the combination of a very large number of persons to subscribe for this one work of art, and the avoidance of risk, incidental expenses, and publisher’s profits, the print, though at least equal to what would be charged a guinea (the amount of subscription) in the ordinary course of trade, is supplied to the subscribers at so small a cost as to leave by far the greater part of the subscribed sum as a fund applicable to the purchase of prizes. Several similar associations have been since formed on a smaller scale in other parts of Great Britain.] FOOTNOTES [1023] And in Greek σύμβολα. [1024] Many have written at considerable length on the _congiaria_, yet the difference between the _missilia_ and _tesseræ_ has not been sufficiently explained. The first, or at least the best account, is in Turnebi Adversaria, xxix. 9, p. 637. In a passage in the Life of Nero by Suetonius, xi. 11, p. 21, the articles which were thrown among the people are called _missilia_; but in regard to corn, the term _tesseræ_ is expressly named. The passages where a description is given of the manner in which the _tesseræ_ were thrown out, are to be found in Dio Cassius. The wooden balls, like those of the Lotto, appear to have been hollow, and to have contained the ticket or written order. Those desirous of knowing how these _tesseræ_ were formed, and of what they were made, may consult Hugo de Prima Scribendi Origine, Traj. 1738, 8vo, cap. 15, p. 229. [1025] Juven. Sat. vii. 174. [1026] This abuse of lotteries was mentioned by the states of Wirtemberg, in the year 1764, among the public grievances; and in 1770 the duke promised that it should be abolished. I must here mention, to the honour of our prince and government (the author alludes to Hanover), that since lotteries were found necessary in this country, not a farthing of the profit has gone to the treasury of the prince, but the whole has been employed for pious or charitable purposes. [1027] Recherches de la France. Paris, 1665, fol. viii. 49, p. 729. [1028] This word is still used in Germany by the writers on Tontines; such, for example, as Michelsen. [1029] Both the orders may be found in Traité de la Police, par De la Mare, Paris 1722, fol. i. pp. 502, 504. [1030] The whole establishment is particularly described in Sauval, Histoire et Recherches des Antiquités de Paris, 1724, fol. [1031] Sauval, pp. 71, 73, 76. [1032] Dictionnaire de Commerce, par Savary. Art. _Lotterie_. [1033] All the orders here quoted may be found in De la Mare. Those desirous of being fully acquainted with the nature of the first Parisian lotteries, and the method of drawing them, may consult Histoire de la Ville de Paris, par Felibien. Paris, 1725, fol. ii. p. 1462. [1034] Christ. Longolii Epistolarum libri iv. Basiliæ, 1570, 8vo, iii. 33, p. 239. The letter is addressed to Octavius Grimoaldo, who lived, I think, at Venice, and had written, it seems, to Longolius, that he was unwilling to venture his money in the lottery. That Longolius had in his hands money belonging to Grimoaldo is proved by the letters iii. 3, iii. 7, 20. “That new kind of gambling is truly ours, and is called by us _Loteria_, as it were, a table-vessel (_vasculia_); doubtless from an arrangement of silver vessels appended to the gaming-table, which are distributed amongst those whose names are in the lottery, in such a manner that one vessel is assigned to each. But as you signify your disapproval of that kind of gaming, and do not think fit to expose my money to so much hazard, I acknowledge your prudence and kindness to me.” This derivation of the word _Loteria_ is undoubtedly false, as Menage has already remarked, in his dictionary, art. _Lot_. He there says, “Je n’ay point lu ailleurs que _lot_ signifiast _de la vaiselle_. Et je croy Longueuil s’est mal expliqué, et qu’il a voulu dire qu’on appelloit _Loterie_ la vaiselle d’argent d’un buffet, parceque de son tems on mettoit ordinairement à la loterie la vaiselle d’argent d’un buffet.” [1035] Dier. Canicul. 1691, fol. tom. ii. colloq. 2. [1036] See Du Cange, art. _Lot_. Muratori, Antiquit. Ital. Medii Ævi, ii. p. 1240. Among the oldest German words in Lipsii Epistolæ ad Belgas, Cent. 3, 44, p. 49, stands _Los_, sors. The _t_ is often changed into _s_. Thus _nut_ in the English and Low German, _noot_ in the Dutch, and _nöt_ in the Swedish, are the same as the German _nuss_. [1037] The convenient machine and apparatus, by which the drawing is much forwarded at present, were not then known. A description of them may be found in Savary’s Diction. de Commerce. [1038] Gent. Mag. xlviii. an. 1778, p. 470, from which I shall also transcribe the whole title of the scheme:--“A proposal for a very rich lottery general, without blanks, contayning a great number of good prizes, as well as of redy money as of plate, and certain sorts of merchandises, having been valued and prized by the commandment of the queen’s most excellent majesties order, to the intent that such commodities as may chance to arise thereof, after the charges borne, may be converted towards the reperations of the havens and strength of the realme, and towards such other public good workes. The number of lotts shall be foure hundred thousand, and no more; and every lott shall be the sum of tenne shillings sterling, and no more. To be filled by the feast of St. Bartholomew. The show of prises are to be seen in Cheapside, at the sign of the Queene’s Armes, the house of Mr. Dericke, goldsmith, servant to the queene, 1567, 8vo. Printed by Hen. Bynneman.” See also Maitland’s History of London, 1756, fol. i. p. 257.--Northouck’s History of London. Lond. 1773, 4to, p. 257. [1039] Hist. of Commerce. [1040] Commelin’s Amsterdam, i. p. 440. In the year 1561 the profit on a lottery was employed for enlarging the Orphan House. See Pontani Rerum Amst. Hist. 1611, fol. lib. ii. c. 2. [1041] [Lotto does not consist, like the lottery, of a fixed number of tickets and a certain number of specified prizes, but is, in fact, a mere game of chance, at which the stakes are indefinite, and is thus played. A given quantity of numbers are placed together, of which a few are only to be drawn: the adventurers then select any one or more, on which they bet any sum they think proper; and, should they prove successful, they draw so much more than their stake, in a settled proportion, according as their risk was increased by the quantity of numbers which they named together. Thus the usual quantity is ninety numbers, from one upwards, and five only of these are drawn: if the adventurer chooses but _one_ number out of the 90, and that it be one of those drawn, his stake is returned fifteen fold; if _two_, he receives, if they be drawn, 270 times the stake; if _three_, 5500 times; if _four_, 75,000 times; and should he name the _entire five, in the exact order in which they happen to be drawn_, he is entitled to 1,000,000 times more than the stake he ventured. These chances are all calculated largely in favour of the banker or holder of the lotto, and there is no instance upon public record of any person having named the five numbers in regular succession; but three have been frequently fixed upon, and even four have been sometimes, though rarely, attained: by the latter chance, the lotto established in 1774 at Neufchatel was ruined.] BOLOGNA STONE. The Bologna stone, in consequence of its property of shining in the dark, which was observed by accident, has given rise to many laborious researches and experiments, and to writings almost without number, which have not so much enlarged our knowledge of light, as proved that all the hypotheses hitherto offered by philosophers for explaining it, if not entirely false, are at least insufficient and uncertain. The history of this stone, therefore, though not unknown, deserves to be here repeated, especially as many parts of it require to be rectified. As a complete description of it would be superfluous to mineralogists, it may be sufficient to remark, that this kind of stone is found in plates or single pieces, which in general are more or less of a conical form, have a dirty white or semi-transparent water-colour, and a foliaceous structure, which is observed on its being broken, though the stone, considered in another direction, appears to be fibrous. The surface of single pieces is uneven. But what distinguishes this species from the gypseous spars, to which it bears the greatest resemblance, is its extraordinary weight; and this it has in common with all the varieties of heavy spar, to which, according to its component parts, it belongs. This stone is found on different eminences around Bologna, and particularly on the hill of Paderno, which is situated at the distance of about a German mile from the city, loose, and scattered about between gypseous stones, in a marly earth, some of which is still seen adhering to pieces in my possession. It is found most readily after heavy rains, particularly in the streams which run down the sides of the hill; and it is there collected by persons who sell it at Bologna. In the year 1730, when Keysler was there, a pound of it could be purchased for a _paolo_[1042]. I shall take this opportunity of remarking, that the Bologna stone, according to its external characteristics, heaviness and hardness excepted, has a great similarity to those gypseous spars or selenites which were first described by Lehman[1043], and at the time perhaps by him alone; according to whose account, it is mentioned also by Vogel[1044] and by Wallerius[1045], under the name of _Selenites globosus_: on the other hand, it has not been mentioned by modern mineralogists under any particular appellation. In the county of Mansfeld it is found in detached masses or single pieces, more or less conical; and, to judge from the earth purposely left on the specimens in my possession, which were picked up in the neighbourhood of Sangershausen, in a yellowish-red sandy clay. The pieces, many of which are round balls, two or three inches in diameter, and others longish rolls, have, externally as well as internally, a grayish colour, appear foliated on the fracture, or seem to consist of cuneiform radii, which meet in the centre of the ball. Many are hollow in the inside; and in this case the ends of the cunei or needles, which have between them a granulated gypsum mixed with a little clay, project into the cavity. Lehman says that the leaves, when placed in a heated stove, emit a hesperus, that is, shine; and this circumstance made Wallerius doubtful whether this selenite did not belong to the fluor-spars; but it is undoubtedly a sulphate of baryta. When the crude stone is put into acids, a very faint effervescence is sometimes observed, arising from foreign matters; but when burnt pieces are employed, this effect is much stronger. It does not crack or break in the fire; but if exposed only a short time to a red heat, it becomes totally opake, whiter, and void of all lustre; it is also more friable, and crumbles to dust in water, exactly in the same manner as bastard _lapis specularis_. The luminous appearance in a warm stove I did not observe in the few pieces which I subjected to experiment. I was desirous to make this remark, because the mineralogists before-mentioned place globular selenite along with the Bologna stone, to which however it does not belong. To render it capable of shining in the dark, a piece particularly heavy, foliaceous and pure, must be selected[1046]. After being made red-hot, it is pounded and reduced to a fine powder, which, by means of a solution of gum-tragacanth, is converted into a kind of paste, and formed into small cakes. When these are dried, they are brought to a state of ignition between coals, and then suffered to cool; after which they are preserved from the air and moisture in a close vessel. If one of these cakes be exposed a few minutes to the light, and then carried into a dark place, it will shine like a burning coal. It appears therefore to attract the light, or to be as it were a light-magnet. This power of emitting light becomes lost in the course of time; but it may be restored at first by heating, and afterwards by exposure again to ignition. I shall pass over the rules necessary to be observed in the numerous experiments made with this stone, as well as the consequences deduced from them. The former may be found in works on chemistry, and the latter in those on natural philosophy. All the Italian writers who first describe this remarkable phænomenon give the following account of the discovery. At the beginning of the seventeenth century there was at Bologna a shoemaker, who, having quitted his trade, applied himself to chemical labours, and particularly to the art of gold-making. I do not know whether those who have made the very just remark, that many shoemakers go beyond their last into the province of other arts or sciences, have mentioned among the already numerous instances this shoemaker of Bologna, whose name was Vincentius Casciorolus; but he certainly deserves a niche in the temple of fame, because it may with truth be said of him, that he kindled up a light to the learned; whereas the shoemaker of Görlitz, Jacob Behmen, darkened or extinguished the existing light to the learned as well as the unlearned, so that the minds of many are still left in obscurity. In the year 1602 Casciorolus came to Scipio Begatello of Bologna, who at that time was particularly well known by his attachment to the art of gold-making, and showed him this stone, under the mystical name of _lapis solaris_, which, on account of its weight and the sulphur it contained, as well as of its attracting the golden light of the sun, seemed to be fit for converting the more ignoble metals into gold, the _sol_ of the alchemists. He showed it also to J. A. Maginus, the professor of mathematics; and the latter, who in all probability was no adept, sent both the natural and prepared stones to princes and learned men, and perhaps contributed more than any other person to make known this singular discovery[1047]. It however appears as if the Italian chemists concealed the preparation of this stone, or were not all acquainted with it. It was always said to be a secret known only to a few individuals in Bologna. Misson, who was there in the year 1690, asserts that Bartholomew Zanichelli was the only person at that time in possession of it. In 1666 it was announced in the Philosophical Transactions[1048], that a clergyman, who exclusively possessed the art, had died, without communicating it to any one. Niceron[1049], Lemery[1050], and many others say, that Homberg, during his residence at Bologna, had again discovered it, after many experiments; and that Lemery learned it from him and made it publicly known. This however cannot be altogether true; for in the year 1622, P. Potier, or Poterius, a French chemist, who lived at Bologna, taught the preparation of it in his work already quoted, as did Kircher[1051] in 1641, and the jesuit Casati[1052] in 1686; though the process then employed was indeed not the best or most convenient; the proper method being first found out, after many accurate experiments, by the German chemist Marggraf, who showed also how similar light-magnets or luminous stones can be prepared from most of the heavy spars and fluor-spars[1053]. But even at present, those who prepare this stone for sale at Bologna talk in such a manner as if the secret were known to them alone. This was the case, in 1771, with the director of the institute in that city[1054]. Keysler purchased a piece, as large as a dried fig pressed flat, for about two or three _paoli_. I shall embrace this opportunity of bringing to recollection, from De Thou’s history of his own times, a relation which indeed contains many things incredible, and in all probability exaggerated, yet seems to be too well confirmed to be altogether rejected as false. If this be admitted, it may then be conjectured that, about the year 1550, either the Bologna stone, or what at present is called _phosphorus_ and _pyrophorus_, was known to a few individuals. In the above year, when Henry II. king of France made his solemn entrance into the town of Boulogne, on its restoration by the English, a stone from India, which was not hard, which had a luminous appearance like fire, and which could not be touched without danger, was presented to him by a stranger. For the truth of this account De Thou refers to the testimony of J. Pipin, in a letter to Ant. Mizaud, who asserts that he himself saw the stone. Morhof, who seems inclined to consider this stone as that of the philosophers[1055], remarks that this passage is found in the first Paris edition in octavo, and in the Frankfort re-impressions, both in folio and octavo; but not in the other editions. He quotes also the words from the letter to Mizaud, which must be printed somewhere, but in what work I do not know. It appears that the historian inserted it almost without any change. [We may take this opportunity of describing one or two other pyrophori: thus Canton’s pyrophorus is prepared by heating a mixture of three parts of sifted calcined oyster-shells with one part of flowers of sulphur to an intense heat for one hour; Homberg’s, by mixing equal weights of alum and brown sugar, and stirring the mixture over the fire in an iron ladle until quite dry; it is then put into an earthenware or coated glass bottle and heated red-hot as long as a flame appears at the mouth; it is then removed, carefully stopped and suffered to cool. The black powder which it contains becomes glowing hot when exposed for a few minutes to the air.] FOOTNOTES [1042] [Several localities are now known for this peculiar variety of heavy spar; among others we may mention Amberg in the Upper Palatinate, and near Osterode in the Harz mountains.] [1043] Geschichte von Flötz-Gebürgen. Berl. 1756, 8vo. [1044] Mineral System. Leip. 1762, 8vo. [1045] Syst. Mineral. 1772, 8vo, i. p. 162. [1046] [In preparing solar phosphorus from the Bolognian stone, it should be carefully separated from any contamination of iron or other heavy metals, formed into a paste as above-described, and exposed to the heat of a wind-furnace for an hour or two.] [1047] Fortunii Liceti Litheosphorus, sive de lapide Bononiensi. Utini 1640, 4to, p. 13. He calls the shoemaker _Casciorolus_, which seems to be wrong, as Lemery and others write his name _Cascariolo_. Licetus refers to the letters of Ovidio Montalbani. Epist. var. ad Eruditos viros de Rebus in Bononiensi tractu indigenus, ut est lapis Illuminabilis et lapis specularis, calamonastos, &c., Bonon. 1634, 4to. Among the oldest accounts are those in Petri Poterii Pharmacopœia spagyrica, ii. 27, in Opera, Fran. 1698, 4to. In this work the alchemist is called _Scipio Bagatellus_, a name which does not occur in Fantuzzi, Notizie degli scrittori Bolognesi. [1048] An. 1666, n. 21, p. 375. [1049] Mémoires des Hommes Illustres. [1050] Cours de Chymie. Dresd. 1734, 8vo. [1051] Magnes, p. 481. [1052] De Igne. Franc. 1688, 4to, p. 350. [1053] Marggrafs Chymische Schriften, ii. p. 119. This author says the cakes must be only as thick as the back of a knife; but that which I obtained in the year 1782 from Bologna, was an inch English measure in diameter, and two lines in thickness. It still weighs, after the brass box in which I long preserved it between cotton in a luminous state, has become black, and itself has lost its virtue, three drachms. In colour it has a perfect resemblance to the star which Marggraf prepared from German stones, and presented to Professor Hollman, and which is now in my possession. It is contained in a capsule of tin plate, over which a piece of glass is cemented. [1054] Ferber’s Briefe aus Wälschland, p. 75. [1055] Polyhist. i. 1, 13, 26, p. 127. FOUNDLING HOSPITALS. Child-murder is so unnatural a crime, that mankind can be brought to the commission of it only by the greatest desperation, for which unfortunately there is too much cause. To parents who are just able by incessant labour to procure those things indispensably necessary to support life, the birth of every child increases the fear of starving or of being reduced to beggary. Those who have secured to them a scanty subsistence, but who live amidst the torments of slavery, wish to the new-born child, which at any rate is doomed to death, a speedy dissolution, before it can know that it has had the misfortune to be brought into the world, in order that they may not bequeath to it their poverty. A young female who has acquired by education the most delicate sense of honour and shame, finds herself, on the birth of an illegitimate child, exposed at once to the utmost disgrace and contempt. Her misfortune, though viewed with an eye of pity by the compassionate, excites the hatred of the greater part of her relations and friends, by whom she was before loved and respected, and who endeavoured to render her happy; and often amidst the most poignant feelings, and an agitation bordering on madness, she sees no other means of saving her honour than the total concealment of her error by destroying the child: a resolution which, notwithstanding the vigilance of the laws, is too often attended with success. A young woman who at this moment finds herself suddenly despised and neglected by her admirer, who gained her affections by the most powerful of all means, love and confidence, and obtained from her what she can never recover, is often induced, in a fit of despair, to vent her fury on the consequences of her seduction--the child of her seducer. These misfortunes of mankind are among the disadvantages attending civilised society, which always render marriage more difficult as well as burthensome, and thereby make it impossible to gratify one of the most powerful impulses of nature. In the savage state, parents require no more for themselves and their children than what they can easily obtain. The inhabitants of Terra del Fuego, who live at the greatest distance from all culture, find shell-fish and esculent plants sufficient to appease their hunger; never are their thoughts disturbed by care for the maintenance of a child. The black slaves in St. Domingo say, that “it is only the white man who begs;” and indeed in this they are right[1056]. Beggars exist only where they are established by religion and governments which command them to be fed. But the transition from living by one’s own industry to beggary is, in consequence of the shame attending it, most painful and insupportable to those who with the greatest exertion and waste of strength, amidst the privation of every comfort, are exposed with their children to the horrors of famine. On the other hand, to those who, in our states, are obliged to eat the bread of mendicity, children are a blessing; because as long as they are incapable of running alone, they increase their alms by exciting greater compassion, and afterwards by begging in the streets[1057]. It is not therefore poverty already reduced to the state of beggary, but the dread of being at length overwhelmed notwithstanding every exertion to swim against the stream, that occasions child-murder. The same is the effect of slavery, which excludes the possibility of even hoping for a change to a better condition. The serfs of a hard-hearted land-proprietor, who however acted according to the established laws, entered into a resolution to get no children, that they might not be under the necessity of putting any of them to death[1058]. The sense of honour becomes stronger the more the manners approach towards a certain degree of refinement; and it is proved that it is this cause which, in most instances, gives rise to child-murder. In vain have legislators endeavoured to prevent this crime by capital punishment, more cruel than the crime itself. But indeed it is difficult, or rather impossible, to proportion punishment to delinquency or the just degree of guilt. It needs excite no wonder that many states where the Christian religion was not introduced, and even the Jewish, made no law against child-murder, though the atrocity of it was never denied[1059]. To render this crime less frequent, men fell upon the way of exposing children, in the hope that they might be found by benevolent persons, who would educate and maintain them. Parents imagined that in this manner less violence was offered to humanity, and they could more easily be induced to resign their children to chance than to become their murderers. They consoled themselves with the possibility, proved by various examples, that the exposed children might be saved, and be more fortunate than their parents[1060]. To promote this, they deposited them in places where a great many people might be expected soon to pass, and where the child would consequently be found before it should perish by cold and hunger or be devoured by ravenous animals. With this view they made choice of the market-places, temples, places where two or more highways met, wells, the banks of rivers or the sea-shore, from which water was brought or which were the usual places of bathing; and even, when the children were placed in the water, means were contrived that they should at any rate float some time without being injured. For this purpose they were placed in small chests, trays, or close baskets, or wrapped up in waterproof bandages[1061]. At Athens children were commonly exposed in that place called _cynosarges_, which was one of the _gymnasia_. At Rome the most usual place was that pillar called _columna lactaria_, which stood in the market where kitchen vegetables were sold[1062]. When the exposure of children in civilised states began to be condemned as unlawful, it was however suffered to pass unpunished, even under the first Christian emperors. Legislators only endeavoured by regulations of every kind to render it less common, and to provide for the maintenance of children; until at last, through horror at the cruelty of it, but without thinking of the causes or attempting to remove them, they conceived the unfortunate idea, in order to guard against this crime, of declaring it to be murder, and punishing it as such. It became then much safer for parents to bury children, or to throw them into the sea, than to run the chance of exposing themselves to the utmost shame and punishment, when they were searched out and discovered. In Greece, but not at Thebes in Bœotia[1063], the exposure of children was permitted and common, and therefore many of the Greek historians mention the contrary as a foreign but meritorious custom. Strabo[1064], on this account, praises the Egyptians, and Ælian[1065] extols the laws of the Thebans against the killing and exposing of children. This cruel practice was equally common at Rome. Romulus however, who was himself a foundling, endeavoured to restrain it, and his order was confirmed in the twelve tables; but as population, luxury, scarcity, and dissipation increased, it became customary for those who had more children than they wished, to expose some of them. Many deposited with them rings and other costly ornaments; and those who were poorer, trinkets of little value, partly to entice people to receive the children, and partly that, by describing these appendages, when the children were grown up, or their own circumstances had become better, they might be able to recover them. Even at present, in many places, the children carried to foundling hospitals are accompanied by tokens, which are carefully preserved, as is the case in the Spedale degl’ Innocenti at Florence, where a piece of lead imprinted with a number is hung round the neck of each babe, in such a manner that it cannot be easily removed, and occasions no inconvenience in the wearing. By these means one can obtain information there, even at a late period, in regard to each child[1066]. It is mentioned by Tacitus[1067], as a circumstance deviating from the Roman manners, that the old Germans considered child-murder as a crime; and where he speaks of the peculiarities of the Jews, he does not fail to relate the same thing of them[1068]. Dionysius of Halicarnassus bestows the like praise on the Aborigines[1069]. When the morals of mankind began to be improved under the influence of Christianity, its followers endeavoured by every means in their power to banish from among them this cruelty, on account of which they so bitterly reproached the Romans[1070]. The first Christian emperors, however, did not venture to forbid it as a crime; though Constantine called exposure a kind of murder, and wisely exerted himself to remove the causes of it. By an order issued in the year 331, he endeavoured to deter parents from it, as he there deprived them of all hope of being able to claim or recover exposed children, even if they should make good the expenses incurred by those who had maintained them[1071]. This cruel practice was nevertheless continued for a long time after. Lactantius[1072], who lived under the reign of Constantine, describes it as a still prevailing remnant of barbarity; and Julius Firmicus, who wrote about the year 336, considered it worth his while to give particular instructions for casting the nativity of foundlings[1073]. The exposure of children was not completely prohibited till the time of Valentinian, Valens and Gratian, in the last half of the fourth century[1074]. One cannot, without reluctance, believe that this barbarous practice was so long permitted, or remained unpunished, in civilised states; but it must be mentioned, to the honour of antiquity, that in many countries the care of government was directed at an early period to exposed children. Not only were means pursued in Greece and Rome to encourage the reception and educating of foundlings, by assigning them as property to those who took them under their protection; but it was also made a law, that foundlings who were not received by private persons should be educated at the public expense. At Thebes, where, as already observed, child-murder and the exposure of children were forbidden, parents in needy circumstances were desired to carry their new-born children to the government, and the latter committed them into the hands of those who engaged to take the best care of them for the least money. In the like manner, at present, foundlings are placed with nurses to be maintained at the cheapest rate; but with this difference, that at Thebes the children became slaves for life to those by whom they were educated, whereas in our times, when they grow up they are free people and learn to gain a livelihood for themselves. The humane decrees of the emperor Constantine the Great, both for Italy and Africa, the first in the year 315, and the second in 322, deserve here to be mentioned. The governments in those countries were enjoined to prevent the murder, sale, giving in pawn, or the exposure of children, by taking care that parents who were too poor to educate their offspring, should receive from the public treasury or magazines, or from the emperor’s privy purse, as we say at present, food, clothing and other necessaries; and as new-born children required immediate attention, that this should be done without any delay[1075]. The conjecture of Gothofredus, that the emperor was induced to adopt these measures by the urgent representation of Lactantius, appears to me highly probable. This writer, from the year 317, had been tutor to prince Crispus, and had before dedicated or transmitted to the emperor his book, wherein he painted, in glowing colours, the detestable practice of parents then prevalent, which gave rise to the greatest disorders; and on that account he offered them the specious advice not to beget more children than they were able to maintain. I am inclined to think that this advice did not much please the emperor, who was obliged to keep on foot a numerous army; and as it could not be very agreeable to many married persons, he comprehended this recommendation of prudence or moderation among those calamities from which he was desirous to preserve parents by the above decrees. After these imperial orders, children remained with their parents, and were educated by them; but it appears that the cities of Athens and Rome had, at an early period, public orphan-houses, in which children were educated at the public expense. What has been already said of the gymnasium called _cynosarges_ may serve as a proof; and Festus and Victor make it still more certain that there was an institution of this kind at the _columna lactaria_. At any rate there can be no doubt that, in the sixth century, there were houses at Rome for the reception of deserted children. The emperor Justinian, who by a particular law, in the year 529, declared foundlings to be free, and forbade those by whom they were received and educated to treat them and detain them as slaves[1076], often introduces these establishments, under the appellation of _brephotrophium_, in his laws respecting donations to churches and other beneficent institutions[1077]. This word, composed of the Greek term _brephos_ a child, and _trepho_ to educate, seems to show that houses of this kind were established at an earlier period in the cities of Greece, and were only imitated at Rome; though of this I have as yet found no proof. Du Cange and Stephen have both introduced the word in their Greek dictionaries, but refer only to the Justinian code. Gesner, in Stephen’s lexicon, makes a distinction between _brephotrophium_ and _curotrophium_; the latter, it is said, means a house in which grown-up and not new-born children are educated, and the same thing is repeated in the same words in Calvini Lexicon Juridicum. Both assert that this word, formed from κοῦρος or κόρος, _puer_, is used by Justinian, but does not occur in the book of laws, nor is used by Brisson. It is not to be found in the dictionary of Basle nor in Stephen’s Greek Lexicon, but both these have the word κουροτρόφος, which indeed occurs in Homer and in Hesiod. As Calvin and Gesner refer to Hottoman, I am inclined to think that the word was coined by him, especially as Gesner in the Thesaurus of Faber says, “Curotrophium _potest dici_ domus alendis parvulis destinata.” It is rather astonishing that no mention of the oldest institutions of this kind, or of their establishment, is to be found in the works of the ancients. There is reason however to conjecture, that as long as the sale of children and the slavery of foundlings were permitted, the number of those maintained at the public expense could not be very great. But respecting the _brephotrophia_, even under the later Christian emperors, nothing is said to be found that can give us any idea of the manner in which they were regulated; nothing in regard to the place from which the nurses were procured, or how food and clothing were provided for the children, and as little in regard to the number of children reared in these benevolent institutions who lived to become old. It might be satisfactory to know, whether the oldest institutions of this kind were more fortunate in answering the object of their establishment than our expensive orphan-houses are at present. The great difficulties which attend institutions of this kind are, no doubt, the chief cause why mention of them so seldom occurs during the later centuries, in which the foundation of hospitals, and donations to these and other pious establishments, were so numerous; they are however found so often, that it is impossible to consider them as an invention of modern times. I shall here point out those instances which have hitherto occurred to me; but must first observe, that many more will be found in perusing the lives of saints, and the history of convents, religious orders, churches and towns. Wherever they are mentioned, they are always under the inspection of the clergy. The oldest establishment for orphans in Germany, which I can mention at present, is that at Triers, in the eighth, or seventh, or even sixth century; the account of it is to be found in the life of St. Goar, who lived at Triers under Childebert, consequently in the last half of the sixth century. His historians or panegyrists relate that, being accused before archbishop Rusticus of many misdemeanours, as a proof of his innocence he hung up his hood upon one of the sun’s rays, which entered his cell, as if upon a nail, and that his enemies were still so incredulous as to consider him guilty. The archbishop then, continue they, to whom a new-born child, which had been deposited in the marble conch before the church-door, had been brought, asked him, as a proof of his sanctity, whether he could tell the father of it; upon which Goar, after a most fervent prayer, commanded the child, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, to declare who were its parents. The child, with a clear voice, immediately named its mother, and also its father, the archbishop himself, who in consequence was deprived of his dignity[1078]. The small portion of truth contained in this ridiculous story is, that, at the time when the author wrote, there was an establishment for foundlings at the church of Triers; that the children were deposited in a marble conch placed before the church; that they were received by poor people maintained in order to watch the church, and who were called _matricarii_, because they were matriculated in it, and by them carried immediately to the bishop, and that the child under his sanction was given to some person in the community who agreed to take care of it. These foster-parents were named _nutricarii_. It may be thence easily perceived, that there were then no orphan-houses properly so called, in which children are educated; but that the children, as is the case in our institutions for the poor, were given to others to be nursed, and in all probability the clergy paid to the _nutricarii_ a certain sum from the alms destined for that purpose. One of the lives which relates to the silly tale already mentioned was written by an author who, according to the opinion of Mabillon, lived at a period not much later than St. Goar. The other is by Wandelbart, who lived in the ninth century, and who refers for his authorities to old manuscripts and other documents, _vetusta et perantiqua exemplaria_. It may therefore with safety be asserted, that this establishment for foundlings existed at Triers in the eighth century. The annalists of Triers, indeed, do not mention any bishop named Rusticus who lived about that period; but no doubt needs be excited on that account, as this difficulty may be solved in more ways than one[1079]. In the seventh century there were similar establishments at Anjou, or Angers, in France. St. Magnebodus, who was bishop of that place, where he died, and was buried in the church called at present Saint Mainbeuf, is praised in a very old life of him, never yet printed, for having caused several houses for the rearing of children to be erected[1080]. In the following century, that is about the year 787, an arch-priest named Datheus, established at Milan, at his own expense, a foundling hospital, in order to put a stop to the crime of child-murder, which had been introduced, and of which he gives a very affecting account in the letter of foundation. With this view he purchased a house near the church, and issued an order that the foundlings (_jactati_) should be suckled in it by hired nurses, and educated for seven years. They were to be taught some handicraft; to be supplied in the establishment with food, clothing and shoes, and at the age of seven to be discharged as free-born[1081]. It deserves to be remarked, that the mothers of children carried to such establishments strewed salt between the swaddling-clothes, when they wished to announce that the child had not been baptized. This perhaps had a reference to the circumstance of new-born children being washed in salt water; but I conjecture that the salt thus interspersed was meant to denote that the child had not been washed, and much less baptized. In the capitulary of Charlemagne we meet with all the _loci venerabiles_ of the Justinian code: _xenodochium_, _ptochotrophium_, _nosocomium_, _orphanotrophium_[1082], _gerontocomium_, and also _brephotrophium_[1083]. But at that time, at least among the Franks, the foundlings belonged to those by whom they had been received and educated, unless they were demanded back by their parents or relations within ten days[1084]. It is not improbable that the same practice prevailed at this time in other countries; and perhaps the founder of the foundling hospital at Milan, on this account, declared so expressly that the children, when they grew up, were to be discharged from the institution, as persons born free. In the year 1168, St. Galdinus, cardinal and archbishop of Milan, exercised great severity against heretics; but took particular care of the poor, who believed what he taught; namely, that the hospital there considered itself obliged, not only to receive the sick, but also such children as might be exposed in the city, and to provide them with food and clothing[1085]. In 1070 Olivier de la Trau founded at Montpellier an order, the members of which called themselves _hospitalarii_, sive _spiritus_. They entered into an engagement to take care of the poor as soon as possible, and to provide for the maintenance and education of foundlings and orphans. In the course of a little time they spread themselves into different countries; and wherever they went, the effects of their benevolent vow are still to be found. Some say that the institution for foundlings, or the Hospital of the Holy Ghost, at Montpellier, was established in the year 1180. In 1201 they settled at Rome, and, according to the testimony of historians, formed there an establishment of the same kind, after they had been confirmed by Pope Innocent III., in the year 1198, and obtained for that purpose an elegant mansion, fitted up in the best manner. In the papal bulls mention is made of many convents founded by this order; and I am inclined to think that those who might take the trouble to examine thoroughly the confused history of these hospitallers, or of this order of the Holy Ghost, and of the still existing hospitals distinguished by that title, would find much information in regard to this subject. I call the history confused, because there have been many kinds of hospitallers and similar orders, and these have often been confounded with each other[1086]. Our neighbourhood had similar establishments at an early period. At any rate there was one of this kind at Einbeck, before the year 1274, that is to say, an hospital of the Holy Ghost. It began to be built by duke Albert, who brought Einbeck to the house of Brunswick, when it submitted to him in 1272, in order to get rid of the importunity of count von Dassel. Alms were collected for its establishment and maintenance; and to promote these, the council issued recommendations, or letters-patent, in which it was expressly stated, that not only the indigent, and among these foreigners, were received into their hospital, but also orphans and foundlings, who were maintained and educated till they grew up. Such recommendations were from time to time repeated, for one still exists of the year 1300, which is a literal transcript of that issued in 1274. I do not believe that the hospital at Einbeck was established by the order before-mentioned; at any rate, hospitals of the Holy Ghost occur chiefly in the twelfth and two following centuries; and were founded, not by hospitallers, but established perhaps upon their model. In this manner a rich citizen of Nuremberg, Conrad Heinz, surnamed _der Grosse_, founded the hospital of the Holy Ghost, in 1331. It began to be built in 1333, and was completed in 1341. Neither in the letter of foundation, however, nor in the confirmation, are foundlings particularly named; but it may be readily seen that this institution received poor pregnant women, and educated the children which were either born in it or admitted into it. In the like manner pregnant females, both married and unmarried, and also foundlings, are received into the hospital of St. John, at Turin. The founder of the house at Nuremberg made it a rule, that the day of the birth or reception of each child should be written down, in order that the expense incurred by it might be known, in case it should ever be able and inclined to repay it[1087]. The magnificent foundling hospital at Florence, called at present _Spedale degl’ Innocenti_, was founded in 1316, by one Pollini. There can be little doubt that this is the same establishment for which the well-known Camaldule monk, Ambrosius, often mentioned under his family name Traversari, solicited support from the pope, in the beginning of the fifteenth century. He boasts that the foundlings received by this institution, which he calls _brephotrophium_, were first given to nurses to be suckled, and then admitted into the house and instructed. Girls fit for marriage were furnished with a portion. Citizens also were accustomed to send their children to be educated in the school of this hospital[1088]. L’Hopital du S. Esprit, at Paris, is said to have been founded in 1362, and various persons out of compassion for the exposed children contributed the money necessary to its support. A brotherhood, called la Confrairie du S. Esprit, established to conduct the affairs of the institution, was confirmed the same year by pope Urban V. Paris, however, from time to time obtained more institutions of this kind. In the year 1638 a widow devoted her house to this purpose, and on that account it was called la Maison de la Couche, a name still given to the foundling hospital at the church of Notre Dame. But it was soon found necessary to abandon this well-meant institution, in consequence of the shameful abuses which had crept into it. The nurses often sold the children to beggars, who distorted or mutilated their limbs, in order that they might excite more compassion, and thereby obtain greater alms. Many were purchased also for magical purposes. The price for each was twenty sous. St. Vincent de Paule, of the congregation St. Lazare, founded, in 1640, a new institution, which in 1670 was transferred to the street Notre Dame. It obtained new improvements by the chancellor Etienne d’Aligre and his lady Elizabeth Luillier. At present this house is known under the name l’Hopital des Enfans Trouvés, or de Notre Dame de la Misericorde. That an institution for foundlings at Venice, named before the destruction of the republic Della Pietá, was established in 1380, by a Franciscan named Petruccio, I have somewhere read, but in what author I do not at present remember. In England a proposal for a similar institution was made so early as 1687; but the present foundling hospital was not established till the year 1739[1089]. I shall not however enlarge further on the modern institutions of this kind: my object was to show that they are by no means a new invention, and that they have been continued from the oldest periods to the present time through all ages, and even in those which we are accustomed to call barbarous. In our times most of the foundling hospitals have been suffered to fall to decay; chiefly because, to answer the benevolent purpose for which they are intended, they would require to be on a larger scale and better supported than it is possible for them to be at present; also because they do not entirely prevent child-murder, as they are not capable of completely removing the causes of it. After the establishment of the foundling institution at Cassel, not a year passed without some children being found murdered, either in that place or its neighbourhood. To this may be added also, that it is impossible with the utmost exertion to provide sound nurses for the continually increasing number of children brought in, and to ensure to them sufficient attention. From the year 1763 to the end of 1781 the number of children brought into the foundling hospital at Cassel amounted to 740, of whom no more than eighty-eight remained alive at the end of the latter year. More than one half of them died under the age of eight, and scarcely ten attained to their fourteenth year. In Paris, in the year 1790, more than 23,000, and in 1800 about 62,000 children were brought in[1090]. In 1790, of the children which had been brought in between 1774 and that period, 15,000 only were alive; and it is estimated that 11/13 of all the children brought in perish annually through hunger or neglect. Of 100 foundlings in the foundling hospital at Vienna, 54½ died in the year 1789. In 1797, the nurses in the foundling hospital at Metz had for fourteen months received no wages, and calculation showed that 7/8ths of the whole children perished. In an institution of this kind, in a certain German principality, only one of the foundlings in twenty years attained to manhood, and yet the establishment had cost the country annually 20,000 dollars at least. The education of no German prince ever cost so much. The case with foundling hospitals is the same as with the artificial breeding of fowls; it is easy to obtain chickens, but for want of maternal feeding and care it is almost impossible to rear them. Of what use then is it to collect chickens? FOOTNOTES [1056] The negroes in St. Domingo cannot bear to be thought poor, or to be called beggars. They say none but white men beg; and when any one asks alms at the door, they observe to their master, “There is a poor white man, or a poor Frenchman, begging.” Labat had a negro who gave away a small part of his property, merely that he might have the proud satisfaction of being able to say, “There, white man; there is an alms for you.” But, in all probability, there will be beggars even in St. Domingo, if the negroes are so fortunate as to establish the freedom which they have obtained at the expense of so much blood, and to form a negro state. [1057] During a great scarcity at Hamburgh, when bread was distributed to the poor, one woman told another, to whose request no attention had been paid, that she brought her child with her, and pinching it so as to make it cry, excited compassion and by these means received bread. The latter begged the other to lend her the child for the like purpose, and having made it cry obtained bread also; but when she returned and wished to restore the child with thanks, the mother was not to be found, and therefore she was obliged to keep the child. [1058] In the course of nine years not a single individual announced an intention of marrying. The young people supplied their wants in another manner. Hence arose a scarcity of men, who cannot be purchased in Europe, as in the West Indies. The proprietor, therefore, was obliged to sell his estate. The purchaser improved the condition of his serfs, and marriages became common among them. See Büsch vom Geld-umlauf. vi.