2. Privilegia ordinis S. Jo. Hierosol. small folio, Romæ 1588. 3.

Statuta Hospitalis, without place or date, small folio. Each copy, however, has many things which in the others are wanting. 4. Histoire de Malthe, avec les Statuts et les Ordonnances de l’Ordre. Paris, 1643, fol. 5. Codice del sacro militare ordine Gerosolimitano. In Malta 1782, fol. The words relating to this subject may be found in Titulo quarto, xi et xii. [1117] The proofs of this singular account may be seen in Assemani Bibliotheca Orientalis, tom. iii. P. 2. pag. CMXL. [1118] Diogen. Laert. lib. i. seg. 55. This regulation has been praised by many. Plato in Menexemo, Æschines contra Ctesiphon. [1119] Suidas, v. αδυνατοι, Lysiæ Orat. 23, contra Pancleonem. [1120] Cod. Theodos. lib. vii. tit. 20, 8. Brissonius v. Causarius. [1121] Livius, ii. 47, p. 458.--Dio Cassius, lib. lv. 23, p. 793.--Sueton. Vita Jul. Cæsar. cap. 38. To this subject belong many passages in the Auctor. Rei Agrar. pp. 15, 16, 17, 205, ed. Amstelod. 1674, 4to. [1122] De Imperio Romano, lib. ii. cap. 12. Argent. 1612, 4to. [1123] Lib. i. cap. 7, ext. 10. [1124] Brisson de Verbor. Signif. v. Meritorius. [1125] p. 146. [1126] Histor. lib. vi. cap. 20. [1127] This I learn from Pontac’s Observations on the Chronicon of Eusebius, p. 507, Chronica trium illustrium auctorum. Burdigalæ 1604, fol. [1128] Platina de vitis Pontificum, p. 48, 1664, 12mo. [1129] Lamprid. vita Alex. Severi, cap. 49. [1130] Walch’s Histor. der Päbste. Göttingen, 1758, 8vo, p. 57. [1131] Roma Vet. et Nova. lib. iii. cap. 21. [1132] See Hardouin’s Observations on Plin. lib. viii. seg. 74, p. 477; and the figure of the coin, plate vii. [1133] Annæ Comnenæ Alexiados lib. xv. p. 484. The authoress says expressly, that the name ὀρφανοτροφεῖον is taken only _a parte potiori_, as it is known that at later periods not only children who had lost their parents, but others also who were entirely or in part educated at the public expense, and likewise the children of the choir, were called ὀρφανοί. See Du Cange, Gloss. Græcit. The emperor was accustomed to send orphans to the monasteries to be educated and instructed; but with this express intimation, that they were not to be treated and instructed as serfs, but as the children of freemen.--Anna Comn. p. 381. [1134] [There is a tradition that this institution owes its rise to the patriotic exertions of Nell Gwynn, the celebrated mistress of Charles II. A paragraph in a newspaper of the day seems to give some little strength to the supposition that her family once dwelt in the vicinity; and a public-house still exists at no great distance from the hospital, having her portrait for its sign, with an inscription ascribing to her the merit of the foundation. The anonymous author also of the life of Eleanor Gwynn states, that it was at her instigation that this noble charity was established. “Another act of generosity,” he says, “which raised the character of this lady above every other courtezan of these or any other times, was her solicitude to effect the institution of Chelsea Hospital. One day, when she was rolling about town in her coach, a poor man came to the coach-door soliciting charity, who told her a story, whether true or false is immaterial, of his having been wounded in the civil wars in defence of the royal cause. This circumstance greatly affected the benevolent heart of Eleanor; she considered that (besides the hardships of their being exposed to beggary by wounds received in defence of their country) it seemed to be the most monstrous ingratitude in the government to suffer those to perish who had stood up in their defence. “Warm with these reflections and the overflow of pity, she hurried to the king, and represented the misery in which she had found an old servant; entreated that he might suffer some scheme to be proposed to him towards supporting those unfortunate sons of valour, whose old age, wounds, or infirmities, rendered them unfit for service; so that they might not close their days with repining against fortune, and be oppressed with the misery of want.” Another anecdote of that period states, with somewhat more probability, “That when the garrison was withdrawn from Tangiers, there was among them a considerable number of aged and decrepid persons. It was therefore proposed to build an hospital for them; and the king being applied to for a piece of ground for the site, he offered the spot on which king James’s College stood; but recollecting himself, ‘Odso,’ says he, ‘’tis true I have already given that land to Nell, here.’ She, who was one of the most generous and benevolent of human beings, immediately said, ‘Have you so, Charles? then I will return it to you again for this purpose;’ and the hospital was accordingly erected. The king however built a house for Eleanor in Pall Mall.” It is however very probable, according to Mr. Evelyn’s Memoirs, that the design originated with Sir Stephen Fox, who for some years had been paymaster of the forces, and certainly had better opportunities of becoming acquainted with the wants and distresses of the aged and worn-out veterans, great numbers of whom had been thrown on the charity of the country at this period. The building was erected under the superintendence of Sir C. Wren, and cost £150,000. It usually contains about 500 invalids; there are also a number of out-door pensioners, amounting to about 85,000.] [1135] An Historical Account of the Royal Hospital for Seamen at Greenwich. London, 1789, 4to. [The foundation-stone of this magnificent building was laid on June 3, 1696, and the whole of the superstructure, under the honorary superintendence of Sir Christopher Wren, was finished within two years; the hospital was opened for the reception of pensioners in 1705. In the year of the foundation an act was passed, 7 and 8 William III., cap. 21, by which sixpence a month of the wages of all seamen belonging to the royal navy is appropriated to the benefits of the institution. Since that time large sums have been bequeathed for the use of the hospital, and the buildings have been successively enlarged and improved. The indoor pensioners, of whom there are 2700 (which number is kept up by filling the vacancies twice a month), are maintained, clothed, and lodged, having also a weekly allowance for pocket-money. By the act, 10 Anne, cap. 27, it is enacted that the seamen of the merchant service shall contribute equally with those of the royal navy; and that such of the former as may be wounded in the defence of property belonging to Her Majesty’s subjects, or otherwise disabled while capturing vessels from an enemy, shall also be admitted to the benefits of the institution. The money received from visitors and other sources is appropriated to the support of a school, wherein upwards of 4000 boys have been (1838) educated, from the foundation of the establishment to the present time. There are also about 32,000 out-pensioners.] [1136] Even Alexander the Great undertook this office, as Plutarch expressly says in his life. [1137] Iliad. xi. 514. [1138] Æneid. ii. 263. [1139] Achil. Tat. Lugd. Batav. 1640, 12mo, pp. 243, 617. [1140] Mauricii Ars Militaris, pp. 29, 62. Upsaliæ 1664, 8vo.--Leonis Tactica, ed. Meursii, Lugd. Batt. 1612, 4to, lib. iv. 6; xii. 51, 53, p. 150; 119, p. 128. To this subject belongs, in particular, a passage in the Tactica of the emperor Leo, p. 430, n. 62, 63, where it is recommended that medicines both for the healing of wounds and the curing of diseases should be kept in readiness in armies. [1141] Often called _Concilium Carolomanni_. See Semleri Hist. Eccles. Selecta Capita. Halæ, 1769, 8vo, ii. p. 144. [1142] Rymer’s Fœdera, t. iv. 2, pp. 116, 117. [1143] See Hoyers Gesch. der Kriegskunst, 1799, 8vo, ii. p. 176. [1144] Kriegsbuch, durch Leonhart Fronsperger. Frankfort, 1565. [1145] The Margate sea-bathing infirmary deserves especial mention, as being the only institution of the kind in England, perhaps in Europe. Its object is to provide sea-bathing for necessitous patients suffering under scrofulous and such other diseases as are likely to yield only to sea-air and bathing. It was set on foot in 1793, and established in 1796, by a few benevolent individuals in London, under the fostering auspices of Dr. Lettsom, John Nichols, Esq. (the eminent printer), and his son-in-law, the Rev. John Pridden. Its present site, Westbrook, near Margate, was selected after much inquiry, as the most salubrious spot on the coast within a convenient distance of the metropolis. From a small beginning this excellent charity has arisen to considerable importance in the scale of those valuable institutions which are designed to lessen the amount of human suffering, and it now numbers 230 in-door and about as many out-door patients. This praiseworthy institution however is closed during six months in the year (from November to April), and the in-door patients are required to pay, either by themselves or their friends, from 5_s._ to 6_s._ per week for adults, and 4_s._ to 4_s._ 6_d._ per week for children; which, as scrofulous diseases more particularly afflict the very poorer classes, are subjects of regret. COCK-FIGHTING. Until a recent period the English were almost the only people among whom cock-fighting was a favourite amusement; and on that account it is considered as peculiar to them, though it was esteemed among various nations many centuries ago. It is not improbable that it was first introduced into England by the Romans. That it, however, has been constantly retained there, though the practice of inciting animals to fight has been long scouted by moral and enlightened nations, is as singular an anomaly, as that the Spaniards should still continue their bull-fights, and that princes who wish to avoid the appearance of cruelty should nevertheless pursue, with immoderate passion, the detestable and so often condemned hunting with dogs. I shall leave to others the task of moralising on these contradictions in the character of whole nations as well as individuals, and shall here only give the history of cock-fighting as far as I am acquainted with it. This pastime is certainly very old; but I agree in opinion with Mr. Pegge[1146], that Palmerius[1147] has made it much older than can fully be proved. The latter supposes that Adrastus, the son of Midas, king of Phrygia, killed his brother in consequence of a quarrel which took place between them in regard to a battle of quails. Adrastus on account of this murder fled to Crœsus; and as that prince lived about 550 years before the Christian æra, quail-fighting, according to the opinion of Palmerius, must have been customary at that time; and in this case one might admit that cock-fighting was of the same antiquity, because the battles of the domestic cock are still more violent, and can afford more amusement. Herodotus[1148], who relates the story of Adrastus, does not mention the cause of the quarrel; but it is given by the historian Ptolemy, the son of Hephestion, called also Alexandrinus, who lived about the time of Trajan and Adrian[1149]. He however only says that the two brothers quarrelled about a quail. Did any other proofs exist that quail-fighting was common at so early a period, it would indeed be then probable that the brothers quarrelled during that pastime. But as no such proofs are to be found, many other causes of quarrelling in regard to a quail, either in catching or pursuing it, may be conceived. It is however certain that quails, as well as the domestic cock, are exceedingly irritable and quarrelsome birds; and that, like the latter, they can be employed for fighting; but it appears that quail-fighting was first practised by the Romans, in whose writings it is frequently mentioned[1150]; whereas among the Greeks it seldom or never occurs, while cock-fighting is spoken of on many occasions. The latter however sported with quails; but their pastime with these birds seems not to have been fighting, properly so called, where the great object of contest is whose quail shall be the victor; but the information on this subject is so imperfect that it cannot be fully understood[1151]. Sometimes the parties laid bets who could kill the other’s quails, or the greatest number of them, with one blow. One placed a quail within a circle, and another endeavoured by irritating the animal to make it go beyond it. If he proved successful in this attempt, he was declared the winner. Several were often placed within a circle at the same time, and the person lost whose bird first quitted it. Kühn and others are of opinion, that each of the parties endeavoured to induce the quail of the other to leave the circle, by irritating or enticing it; but the words appear without doubt to allude to a contest of several quails with each other[1152], were it possible that the later Greeks had learned to play at this game from the contests of the Romans. Solon, however, in Lucian[1153], speaks of cock-fights and quail-fights exhibited publicly at Athens. But Lucian lived in the second century, had travelled into Italy, was well acquainted with the Roman customs, and made Solon mention quail-fighting, which he never saw in Greece, merely because he himself had seen it in Italy. This blunder may appear too gross, perhaps, for so acute a writer as Lucian; but since he has fallen into two anachronisms in the same dialogue, as he not only makes Solon a contemporary of Lycurgus, who lived two centuries earlier, but also introduces him as speaking of public cock-fights at Athens, which were first established half a century later, that is to say, after the battle of Marathon, he may readily have been guilty of a third oversight, by transferring quail-fighting to Athens. But at any rate similar games were usual in the island of Cyprus in the sixteenth century. It appears, however, that the Romans bred and employed partridges for fighting in the same manner as quails. Lampridius relates, that the emperor Alexander Severus was fond of seeing battles of this kind[1154]; and Ælian, who lived in Italy under Heliogabalus, in the second century[1155], says that those who kept partridges for fighting, when they pitted them against each other, placed the females close to the males, in order to render them more courageous. Without doubt he here speaks of what was then usual at Rome. Cock-fighting was appointed at Athens to be a public or solemn pastime, in consequence of a circumstance which occurred to Themistocles. At least Ælian relates[1156] that this commander, when he led out the Greeks against the Persians, happening to see two cocks fighting, took that opportunity to rouse the courage of his soldiers, by telling them that as these animals contended with so much obstinacy, though they fought neither for their country, their families, nor their liberty, but merely for the honour of victory, it was much more incumbent on them to exert themselves with bravery, as they had all these causes of incitement. Having defeated the enemy, as a memorial of his victory and a future encouragement to bravery, it was ordered that fighting-cocks should be exhibited every year, in a public theatre, in the presence of the whole people. Mr. Pegge and others are of opinion that the Greeks afterwards took so much pleasure in the fighting of these birds, that they were generally employed throughout all Greece for this pastime and for betting. I am ready to admit that this is probable; but the institution of Themistocles appears to me to be no proof that cock-fighting was not practised at an earlier period. Even if it had been common, the Athenians might have thought proper to establish a religious or at least solemn cock-fighting to be exhibited every year. Themistocles however is not the only person who employed the courage of game-cocks as an incitement to bravery. Socrates inspired Iphicrates with courage, by showing him with what ferocity the cock of Midas, or Meidias, and that of Callias attacked each other[1157]. What Themistocles said to his soldiers was addressed by Musonius as a philosopher to mankind, to encourage them to support labour, danger, and pain, when duty or honour require it[1158]. Many modern writers ascribe the establishment of public cock-fighting at Athens, not to Themistocles, but to his contemporary Miltiades. I have hitherto suspected that this arises merely from a confusion of names, as is certainly the case in Moses du Soul[1159], where a reference is made to Ælian, by whom however Miltiades is not mentioned. At present, I am of opinion that Philo Judæus, who wrote in the first century, gave occasion to this assertion. He relates, that when Miltiades was about to lead the Grecian troops against the Persians, he exhibited a cock-fight, in a place which had been employed for public shows, in order to inspire courage into his soldiers by this spectacle, and that the end proposed was accomplished; but nothing is said by that author in regard to the establishment of annual cock-fights[1160]. According to this account, cock-fighting seems to have been at that time not uncommon; but as it remains doubtful whether Philo speaks of the campaign before the battle of Marathon, in which Miltiades and Themistocles were both present, very little can be gathered from his relation, and it appears to me not sufficient to contradict the more circumstantial account of Ælian. Another small mistake, which Pegge thought it worth while to notice, deserves also perhaps to be rectified. Dalechamp[1161] and Potter[1162] assert that Themistocles, while leading out his army, having heard a cock crow, declared this to be an omen of victory, and after beating the enemy he instituted cock-fighting in remembrance of that event. I shall here remark, that Dalechamp is not the first person who made this assertion. Peucer[1163], and at a period still earlier, Alexander ab Alexandro[1164] mentioned the same thing, but no one ever pointed out the passage in any ancient author upon which this assertion was founded; and I have been as unsuccessful in my endeavours to find it, as those who attempted to discover the sources from which Alexander derived his information. This author perhaps collected from manuscripts, in the fifteenth century, many things never printed, and which therefore have been lost. He may also have written many things from memory without remembering them all with accuracy. It is indeed true, that the crowing of a cock was sometimes considered as a presage of victory. Thus Cicero quotes an instance[1165] where a Bœotian soothsayer promised victory to the Thebans from the crowing of a cock; and according to Pliny[1166], the same circumstance once served to the Bœotians as an omen of victory over the Lacedæmonians. How then could Themistocles make choice of a cock-fight to commemorate a victory announced by the crowing of a cock? Besides, Anacharsis in Lucian confirms the object of the institution assigned by Ælian. In the history of antiquity many things are often repeated, without any one taking the trouble to examine whether they can be proved by the testimony of the ancients. Those who wish to attain to truth and certainty in matters of this kind, will not consider such short examinations to be of so little importance as they may to others appear. Dempster has assigned another reason for the cock-fights established by Themistocles, which, though adopted by many, is not even supported by probability. He conceives that these cock-fights were like a kind of permanent trophies or monuments of the conquered Persians, because the game-cock was indigenous in Persia, and conveyed thence to other countries[1167]. Athenæus[1168], indeed, quotes from a work of Menodotus some lines by which the latter part of this assertion is confirmed; and Aristophanes[1169] in two places calls the domestic cock a Persian bird. It is proved by more modern accounts, that this species of fowl is at present found wild in the East Indies and many neighbouring countries. Sonnerat[1170] found them in Hindostan; and they were seen by Cook and by Dampier on Pulo Condor and many islands of the South Sea. According to the testimony of Gemelli Careri, they were indigenous in the Philippine islands, and according to Morolla in the kingdom of Congo. That they are still found wild in Georgia is asserted by Reineggs[1171]. The account therefore of the Greeks, that they obtained domestic fowls from Persia, may be admitted; but as in cock-fights one Persian overcame another, how could these convey the idea of a victory of the Greeks over the Persians? Is the object, then, as stated by Lucian and Ælian not sufficient and intelligible? That cock-fighting, in the course of time, became a favourite pastime among the people, is proved by the frequent mention which is made of it in various authors. Pliny says[1172] that it was exhibited annually at Pergamus, in the same manner as combats of gladiators. In this city, according to Petronius[1173], a boy was promised a fighting-cock; and therefore it appears that boys kept cocks there for this pastime. Æschines reproaches Timarchus with spending the whole day in gaming and cock-fighting. Plato[1174] complains, that not only boys but grown-up persons, instead of labouring, bred birds for fighting, and employed their whole time in such idle amusements. Cock-fights were represented also by the Greeks on coins and on cut stones. That the Dardani had them on their coins we are told by Pollux[1175]; and this seems to prove that these people were as fond of that sport as their neighbours of Pergamus. Mr. Pegge caused engravings to be made of two gems in the collection of Sir William Hamilton, on one of which is seen a cock in the humble attitude of defeat, with its head hanging down, and another in the attitude of victory, with an ear of corn in its bill as the object of contest. On the other stone two cocks are fighting, while a mouse carries away the ear of corn for the possession of which they had quarrelled; a happy emblem of our law-suits, in which the greater part of the property in dispute falls to the lawyers and attorneys. Two cocks in the attitude of fighting are represented also on a lamp found in Herculaneum[1176]. That the Greeks employed various means to increase the irritability and courage of fighting-cocks is beyond all doubt. Besides the circumstance already mentioned in regard to the females, they gave them also food which produced nearly the same effect as opium does in India, and as brandy did some years ago on the European armies. Dioscorides[1177] and Pliny[1178] ascribe this effect to a plant which they call _adiantum_. The former says it was given to game-cocks and quails, and the latter that it was given to game-cocks and partridges, to incite them to fight. Garlick, _allium_, was employed also, as we are told by Xenophon, not only for game-cocks but also for horses and soldiers. That the Greeks, however, like the English at present, armed their cocks with steel spurs, in order to render their battles more bloody, is denied by Pegge; though the contrary seems to be proved by a passage in Aristophanes, now become a proverb, and the remarks of the scholiast[1179]. As the English procure the strongest and best fighting-cocks from other countries, and often from Germany, through Hamburg, the Greeks, in the like manner, obtained foreign game-cocks for the same purpose[1180]. Why the Romans showed more fondness for quail-fighting than for cock-fighting I do not know; but it is certain that they had not the latter, or at any rate only seldom and at a late period, which appears to be very singular, as they began then more and more to imitate the Greeks. Varro mentions the breeds which were chiefly sought for in Greece; but he adds, that though they might be good for fighting, they were not fit for breeding[1181]. Had the breeding of game-cocks been an employment, he would have spoken in a different manner. Columella also ridicules the breeding of these cocks, as a Grecian custom, and prefers the native race to all others. Eustathius, in the place already quoted, says expressly that the Romans preferred quails to game-cocks; yet in later times we find mention among them of cock-fighting, as has been before remarked. There were cocks in England in the time of Julius Cæsar[1182]; but it is said that they were kept there merely for pleasure, and not used as food. The latter part of this account is not improbable. The inhabitants of the Pelew Islands, we are told, eat only the eggs of their hens, and not the flesh. But the question, how old cock-fighting is in England, cannot be determined. Pegge says, the oldest information which he found on this subject was in the Description of the City of London by William Fitz-Stephens, who lived in the reign of Henry II., and died in 1191[1183]. This writer relates that every year on Shrove Tuesday the boys at school brought their game-cocks to the master, and the whole forenoon was devoted to cock-fighting, for the amusement of the pupils. The theatre or cock-pit, therefore, was in the school-house, and the pupils seem to have had the direction of it. To this information I can add, that cock-fighting in France was forbidden by a council in 1260, on account of some mischief to which it had given rise[1184]. This pastime has been sometimes forbidden even in England, as was the case under Edward III. and Henry VIII.; also in the year 1569, and even later; but it was nevertheless retained to a late period. Even Henry VIII. himself instituted fights of this kind; and a writer worthy of credit relates, that James I. took great delight in them[1185]. In modern times this cruel amusement has been carried beyond all bounds; so that the cock-fights in China[1186], Persia[1187], Malacca[1188], and America[1189], are nothing in comparison of those called the _battle-royal_ and the _Welsh main_. In the former a certain number of cocks are let loose to fight, and when they have destroyed each other, the survivor is accounted the victor, and obtains the prize. In the latter kind of battle, sixteen pair of cocks, for example, being pitted against each other, the sixteen conquerors are made to fight again; the eight of these which are victors, must fight a third time; and the four remaining a fourth time, till at length the two last conquerors terminate, by a fifth contest, this murderous game, after thirty-one cocks have successively butchered each other amidst the noisy exultation of the spectators, who however make a pretence to the character of magnanimity. [Cock-fighting is one of the chief amusements throughout the East Indies and China, and it is a fashionable pastime for ladies in Peru. The spot on which the cock-pit Royal, which was built in the reign of Charles II., existed, is now used for the meetings of the members of Her Majesty’s Privy Council. The custom of cock-throwing, that is, of throwing sticks at a cock exposed at a stake and which was practised in this country at Shrovetide, is supposed to have originated during the war with France in the reign of Edward III., and to have been considered a mark of hatred and contempt for the French people, of whom that bird was the national emblem; but the conjecture rests upon no solid authority and must be regarded as mere legend. Cock-fighting is now forbidden and punishable by law in Great Britain, and every attempt is made to prevent this and other similar barbarous sports and to convict the offenders, by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.] FOOTNOTES [1146] Archæologia, vol. iii. p. 132. A Memoir on Cock-fighting, by Samuel Pegge, M.A., Rector of Wittington. As this learned antiquary made use of what was collected by others on this subject, I have taken the same liberty with his paper; but have rectified some mistakes and made new additions. [1147] Palmerii Exercit. in Auct. Græcos. Ultraj. 1694, 4to, p. 3. [1148] Lib. i. cap. 35 et 45. [1149] See Vossius de Historicis Græcis, lib. ii. cap. 10. Extracts from this book of Ptolemy may be found in Photii Bibliotheca, 1612, fol. p. 472. [1150] The passages which indisputably relate to quail-fighting, as far as I know, are as follows: Plutarch. Apophthegm. p. 207, ed. Francofurt, 1620, fol. Cæsar Augustus caused a person to be punished for having purchased and used as food a quail which had always been victorious; and in Vita Antonini, p. 930, it is said that Antoninus often had the satisfaction of seeing his game-cocks and quails victorious. M. Antoninus de Se-ipso, i. § 6, declares that he never took pleasure in keeping quails for fighting. Herodian, iii. 10, 4, says that the son of Septimus Severus always got into quarrels at quail- and cock-fighting. [1151] This account is given by Jul. Pollux, lib. ix. cap. 7, § 102 et 108.--Suidas, v. ὀρτυγοκόπος, ed. Kusteri, ii. p. 717.--Meursius de Ludis Græcorum, in Gronovii Thes. Græc. Antiq. vii. p. 979. [1152] Pollux, p. 1095. [1153] De Gymnasiis, cap. 37. [1154] Cap. 41, p. 985. [1155] Histor. Anim. iv. 1. [1156] Var. Histor. ii. 28. Kühn quotes from Eustathius’s commentary on the Iliad, p. 740, a passage which contains a new proof that the Romans had quail-fighting rather than cock-fighting. The words of Ælian are admitted by Petit among the Attic laws. See his Leges Atticæ, p. 156. [1157] Diogen. Laert. ii. 30. p. 98. [1158] Stobæi Eclog. ed. Gesneri. Tiguri 1543, fol. p. 298. Cœlius Rhodiginus Lection. Antiq. xvi. 13, and after him Delechamp, Kühn, Pegge, and others say, that the philosopher Chrysippus extols the game-cock also on account of its courage; but none of these writers has told us where this fragment of the lost works of that polygraph is to be found. I met with it in Plutarchi lib. de Stoicorum repugnantiis, p. 1049. [1159] Solanus ad Luciani lib. c. [1160] The passage occurs in the treatise, Liber quisquis virtuti studet, in op. ed. Mangey, ii. p. 466. [1161] In his observations on Pliny, lib. x. 21, sect. 34. [1162] Antiq. of Greece. [1163] De Divinationum Generibus, 1591, 8vo, 232, b. [1164] Geniales Dies, v. 13. [1165] De Divinatione, i. cap. 34. [1166] Plin. x. 21, sect. 34. [1167] In his Annotations on Rosini Antiquit. Rom. iii. cap. 10. See Hyde de Religione Persarum, p. 163. [1168] Lib. xiv. cap. 20. [1169] Aves, 484, 707. Beck, in his edition of this comedy, Lips. 1782, 8vo, p. 50, thinks that the ancients themselves did not know whence this appellation arose. He refers therefore to the scholiasts, and to Suidas, v. Περσικός ὄρνις, p. 102, whose words have been copied by Phavorinus into his dictionary, p. 598; and he supposes, with Suidas, that the similarity of the cock’s comb to the Persian covering for the head gave occasion to the name. But the passage quoted from Athenæus assigns a much more probable reason. [1170] Voy. aux Indes Or. ii. p. 117, where there is also a figure of the wild fowls. [1171] Reineggs Beschreibung des Kaukasus, 1797, 8vo, p. 69. [1172] Lib. x. c. 7. [1173] Cap. 86. [1174] De Legibus, l. vii. [1175] Onomast. ix. 84. [1176] Antich. di Ercolano, tom. viii. Lucerne, p. 63. More engravings of coins with similar impressions may be found in Haym. Thes. Brit. i. pp. 213, 234, in Agostini Gem. P. i. p. 199, and in Gorleus, P. i. 51, and 114, also P. ii. 246. Frölich Notit. Numism. p. 81. A single cock may often have been the emblem of vigilance. [1177] Lib. iv. cap. 36. [1178] Lib. xxii. cap. 21, sect. 30: “perdices et gallinaceos pugnaciores fieri putant, in cibum eorum additis.” This affords a further proof that partridges also were made to fight. [1179] Aves, 760: αἶρε πλῆκτρον εἰ μάχει: tolle calcar si pugnas. See what has been said in regard to this proverb by Suidas, and by Erasmus in his Adagia. [1180] The most celebrated breeds are mentioned by Columella, viii. 2.--Plin. x. 21.--Geopon. xvi. 3, 30. [1181] Varro, iii. 9. [1182] De Bello Gallico, lib. v. 12. [1183] “Præterea quotannis die, quæ dicitur carnivale (ut a puerorum ludis incipiamus, omnes enim pueri fuimus) scholarum singuli pueri suos apportant magistro suo gallos gallinaceos pugnatores, et totum illud antemeridanum datur ludo puerorum vacantium spectare in scholis suorum pugnas gallorum.” I have transcribed these words from the first edition of this old topography, which is entitled A Survey of London, written in the year 1598, by John Stow ... with an appendix containing Libellum de situ et nobilitate Londini, written by William Fitzstephen. Lond. 1599, 4to, p. 480. Stow translates the word _Carnivale_ by _Shrove Tuesday_. [1184] Du Cange, Glossarium. This council, as I conjecture, was held in the town of Copriniacum in diocesi Burdegalensi, which, as some think, was Cognac. [1185] See Maitland’s London, and Stow’s Survey, by Strype, i. p. 302. edit. 1754. [1186] Bell’s Travels, p. 303. [1187] Tavernier. [1188] Dampier. Also the Gentleman’s Mag. 1770, p. 564. [1189] Wafer, p. 118. SALTPETRE. GUNPOWDER. AQUAFORTIS. In examining the question, whether Theophrastus, Pliny, and in general the ancient Greeks and Romans, were acquainted with our saltpetre, or at what period it became known, I shall perhaps meet with as little success as those who have preceded me in the same research[1190]. I shall therefore be satisfied if competent judges allow that I have contributed anything new that can tend to illustrate the subject. Our saltpetre, which is commonly called _nitrum_, and sometimes, though more rarely, _sal nitræ_, is a neutral salt composed of a peculiar acid, named the acid of saltpetre or nitric acid, and that alkali called potash. The characters by which it is most readily distinguished from other salts are its cooling taste, its fusibility when exposed to a small degree of heat, and in particular its so-called deflagration; that is, the property it has when placed in the fire, or on an ignited body, or when melted in a crucible, with a combustible substance, of suddenly bursting into a very bright flame, by which it loses its acid, and nothing remains but a carbonate of potash. The principal use of it is in making gunpowder, and for the preparation of that acid known under the name of aquafortis[1191], which is employed in various ways. Native saltpetre is so rare, that Cronstedt was not acquainted with it. At present, however, it is known to occur in the East Indies, in the lower part of Italy, also in Portugal[1192], Spain, America, and some other countries[1193]. But almost all the saltpetre obtained in Europe is produced partly by nature and partly by art. The putrefaction of organic bodies gives rise, under certain circumstances, to nitric acid, which in general combines with calcareous earth wherever it finds it, and forms the so-called earthy saltpetre. This is decomposed by potash, and the latter uniting with the acid forms common saltpetre. Sometimes also it is found that the nitric acid, instead of being united with calcareous earth, is combined with soda, which produces the so-called cubic saltpeter[1194]. Both these saline substances, but the earthy more frequently than the cubic, are often found on effloresced walls; and both are then comprehended under the common names of _Mauersalz_ or _Mauerbeschlag_, _sal murale_. This efflorescence on walls was observed, in all probability, at a very early period, especially as it is produced in many parts in great abundance, and as it makes itself perceptible by the decay of walls, which it seems to corrode. It is the plague or leprosy of houses mentioned in the Mosaic code of laws. As the ancients were so much inclined to expect medicinal virtue in all natural bodies, there is reason to think that they soon collected and made trial of this saline incrustation. That this indeed was actually the case, and that they gave the name of _nitrum_ to this saline mass, may be proved from their writings. Their _nitrum_, however, must have been exceedingly various in its properties. For this incrustation is not always calcareous saltpetre; it is often soda[1195], mixed with more or less calcareous earth; and sometimes it consists of salts of sulphuric acid. In modern times, on closer examination, other salts of nitric acid have been found in the incrustation of walls, such as flaming saltpetre or nitrate of ammonia, bitter saltpetre or nitrate of magnesia; but of these no mention can be expected in the works of the ancients. Substances so different ought not indeed to have been all named _nitrum_; but before natural history began to be formed into a regular system, mankind in general fell into an error directly contrary to that committed at present. Objects essentially different were comprehended under one name, if they any how corresponded with each other even in things accidental. Whereas at present every variety, however small, obtains a distinct appellation; because many wish to have the pleasure, if not of forming new species, at any rate of giving new names. The elephant and rhinoceros were formerly called oxen; the sable and ermine were named mice, and the ostrich was distinguished by the appellation of sparrow. In the like manner, calcareous saltpetre and alkali might be called _nitrum_. The ancients, however, gave to their _nitrum_ some epithets, but they seem to have been used only to denote uncommon varieties. Now, as the ancients were not acquainted with any accurate method of separating and distinguishing salts, it needs excite no wonder that they should ascribe to their _nitrum_ properties which could not possibly be united in a salt, and much less exist in our saltpetre. But as they were neither acquainted with aquafortis nor manufactured gunpowder, and as no particular use of calcareous saltpetre was known, the _nitrum_ most valuable to them must have been that which consisted chiefly of soda, and which consequently could be employed in washing, in painting, and in glass-making. It is well known that in warm countries this alkali effloresces here and there from the earth, particularly in a dry soil, and even in such quantity as to be employed in commerce. Hence it may be readily comprehended why this effloresced salt, which is very often mixed with common salt, obtained the name of _nitrum_. The important discovery, that a similar salt, having the like properties, and applicable to the same uses, named at present soda, may be obtained from the ashes of certain plants, was first made, in my opinion, by the ancient Egyptians or Arabians[1196]. This salt also, at least by the Greeks, was named _nitrum_, or considered as a species of it. By the incineration of the plants this salt was rendered slightly caustic; and it then became moist in the air, and deliquesced when not preserved in very close vessels. It was therefore like those salts which are obtained, in the same manner, from the ashes of all other plants; though the latter are essentially different from the former, and in the course of time obtained the peculiar appellation of potash or pearlash. One can hardly be surprised that the ancients were not able to distinguish soda from potash, especially as they were both obtained from vegetable ashes. But were the ancients, under the ambiguous name of _nitrum_, acquainted with our saltpetre? There is certainly reason to think that it became known to them by lixiviating earths impregnated with salts. There are, as already said, not only in India but also in Africa, and particularly in Egypt, earths which, without the addition of ashes or potash, give real saltpetre, like that of the rubbish-hills on the road from new to old Cairo[1197], and like the earth in some parts of Spain. It is a knowledge only of this natural kind of saltpetre, which required no artificial composition, that can be allowed to the ancients, as it does not appear by their writings that they were sufficiently versed in chemistry to prepare the artificial kind used at present. But even admitting that they had our saltpetre, where and by what means can we be convinced of it? Is it to be expected that any of the before-mentioned characters or properties of this salt should occur in their writings? They neither made aquafortis nor gunpowder; and they seem scarcely to have had any occasion or opportunity to discover its deflagration and the carbonization thereby effected, or, when observed, to examine and describe it. No other use of our saltpetre which could properly announce this phenomenon has yet been known. How then can it be ascertained that under the term _nitrum_ they sometimes meant our saltpetre? Those inclined to believe too little rather than too much, who cannot be satisfied with mere conjectures or probabilities, but always require full proof, will acknowledge with me, that the first certain accounts of our saltpetre cannot be expected much before the invention of aquafortis and gunpowder. It deserves also to be remarked, that the real saltpetre, as soon as it became known, was named also _nitrum_; but, by way of distinction, either _sal nitrum_, or _sal nitri_, or _sal petræ_. The first appellation, from which our ancestors made _salniter_, was occasioned by an unintelligible passage of Pliny, which I shall afterwards point out. The two other names signify, like _sal tartari_, _sal succini_, a salt which was not _nitrum_ but obtained from _nitrum_. _Sal-nitri_, therefore, or _salniter_, was that salt which, according to the representation of the ancients, was separated by art from _nitrum_, yet was essentially different from the _nitrum_ or soda commonly in use. Biringoccio says expressly, that the artificial _nitrum_, for the sake of distinction, was named, not _nitrum_, but _sal nitrum_. The name _nitrum_ is of great antiquity, and seems to have been conveyed from Egypt and Palestine to Greece, and thence to Italy and every part of Europe. For it is evidently the _neter_ mentioned by the prophet Jeremiah, chap. ii. ver. 22; and which occurs also in the Proverbs of Solomon, chap. xxv. ver. 20. But whether the name _nitrum_, as Jerome says[1198], be derived from the Egyptian province _Nitria_, whence it was exported in great abundance, or the name of the province was derived from _nitrum_, is a question of little importance in regard to this research. _Nitron_ is mentioned by Herodotus, where he describes the Egyptian method of embalming dead bodies[1199]; by some of the Greeks the word was written and pronounced _litron_. In the same manner people say _nympha_ and _lympha_. In order to avoid confusion, I shall here call the _nitrum_ of the ancients nitrum, and the _nitrum_ of the mineralogists saltpetre. In the course of time men became acquainted with the purer, more useful, and cheaper mineral alkali which was furnished, under the name of soda, by the Moors and inhabitants of the southern countries, who had learned the method of preparing it. The vegetable alkali also was always more and more manufactured in woody districts, as an article in great request, and sold under the name of potash, _cineres clavellati_. All knowledge of the impure alkali from the incrustation of walls was then lost; and as there was no further need of guarding against confusion, it was not longer thought worth while to name saltpetre _sal nitri_: it was called _nitrum_; and the oldest signification of this word being forgotten, it was admitted without further examination, that the _nitrum_ of the ancients was nothing else than our saltpetre. In the sixteenth century some learned Europeans, while travelling through the East, heard the name _natrum_ given to the mineral alkali which was then exported as an article of commerce, and introduced in their works this transformation of the ancient word _nitrum_. This appellation was employed by the systematic mineralogists, who, giving themselves little trouble about the original meaning of words, and taking care only to avoid confusion, called the mineral alkali also _natrum_, and applied the name of _nitrum_ to saltpetre. As far as I know at present, it was first stated by Peter Bellon and Prosper Alpinus[1200], that the mineral alkali was in the East called _natrum_. The former returned in 1549, and the latter was still in Cairo in 1580. This word was adopted in mineralogy by Linnæus, in the year 1736, as the name of a species, in which he comprehended for the first time the alkaline incrustation found on walls. In this he is followed by Wallerius, who includes also the mineral alkali from the East. Afterwards the word _natrum_ was employed in the same sense by all mineralogists. It deserves here to be remarked, that Boyle had even examined and determined the difference between the fixed and volatile alkalies; but that mineralogists and chemists, till the latest periods, believed that all fixed alkali arose, or at least was obtained, by the incineration of plants. The difference between the mineral and vegetable alkalies was first defined, in a proper manner, by the exertion of the German chemists Pott, Model and Marggraf[1201]; especially after the last had proved, in the year 1758, that the basis of common salt was not, as had before been generally believed, an alkaline earth, but a fixed alkali, to which, because it was in many of its properties different from the fixed vegetable alkali, he gave the name of fixed mineral alkali. Soon after this substance was discovered in mineral springs; and Model and others have shown that it is not essentially different from that which in the East is called _natrum_. It is singular, and yet may be accounted for, that since that time many have spoken of the _nitrum_ and _natrum_ of the ancients, though they are only different pronunciations of the same word; and _natrum_ is never found in the works of the Greeks or the Romans, and not even in writings of the middle ages. But if the greater part of what I have here said should be considered only as conjecture, it must nevertheless be acknowledged that it is deduced from the nature of the thing; and when impartially compared with what we read in the ancients, the latter I hope will be better understood than it hitherto has been; the impropriety of many readings will become apparent, and the truth of this conjecture be admitted. Were I here to relate everything that we read of _nitrum_, in order to compare it with nature and to examine it thoroughly, I should be obliged to extend this article to a greater length than might be agreeable to the reader. I shall therefore give only the principal proofs of my assertion, premising, that doubts which might be excited by single passages not here mentioned, will, on a closer comparison, vanish without my assistance. But I maintain that those who wish to explain the old names of natural objects must relate everything said of them, and not that alone which is favourable to their opinion, and which may be often contradicted by what was purposely or accidentally concealed. The first part of such an examination is always a careful collection from the writings of the ancients of all the predicates of the natural object, the systematic name of which one is endeavouring to prove. There is reason however to conjecture, that the ancients, in the history of their impure nitre, the manner of obtaining which the Romans at least had no opportunity themselves of seeing, for Pliny says expressly that it was not procured in Italy, fell into many errors and mistakes, which at present cannot all be explained. Hence it happened that the ancients did not understand the art of purifying the salt which they obtained from minerals; and therefore they were obliged to use it in the same impure state in which they found it. On this account they considered each natural mixture as a peculiar kind; gave to the greater part of them, or those most useful, particular names; and of these recommended for different purposes those which, according to their purity or mixture, or according to other circumstances, were the most convenient. It is not probable that all these varieties could be again found out or defined; and it seems to be of little importance, when it is known that the names denote nothing more than the varieties of a mineral. In this examination it is to be regretted that the book of Theophrastus, in which he expressly treated of _nitrum_, has not been preserved. But it may be believed, even without the testimony of Pliny, that he was one of the most accurate and acute naturalists among the ancients, and that he gave the best account of this substance[1202]. It must, however, be admitted that Pliny thoroughly understood this author, and gave a correct extract from him, and that the transcriber fell into no mistake. That the _nitrum_ of the ancients was an alkali more or less impure, but not saltpetre, has been long admitted by those who had the least knowledge of mineralogy, as well as by the most sagacious physicians. The grounds for this opinion, as far as I have yet learned, are as follows: more indeed might be found, but these are sufficient to afford a complete proof. Galen, a cautious writer, says that _nitrum_ was in general burnt, by which means its effects were strengthened[1203]. Had it been saltpetre, it is impossible that the ancients should not in burning it have observed its deflagration, and this property is too remarkable not to have been mentioned. But nothing is to be found that can with any probability be supposed to allude to it. But should it be admitted without any grounds that it was not an alkali but saltpetre which they burnt, it must certainly have been carbonized; for a burning body may easily have fallen into the crucible, and in general _nitrum_ seems to have been burnt in an open fire, like our lime, because Pliny, speaking of the Egyptian, considers the contrary as somewhat uncommon. Physicians then, at any rate, must have observed, that a body very different both in its appearance and effects was produced from saltpetre by burning, but which could not be used for any other purpose than that salt. Of this however we do not find the least intimation. But _nitrum_ was undoubtedly soda, and on that account when burnt must have become more caustic as well as stronger in most of its effects, and in this respect similar to potash, since [owing to impurities] it in the same manner became moist and deliquesced in the air. What Pliny relates of the Egyptian _nitrum_ becomes then intelligible. The latter, he says, was transported in pitched vessels, because it would otherwise have deliquesced; and he afterwards adds, that it was burnt before it was sent off. Had he known that the latter was the cause and the former the effect, he would have mentioned the latter first; but his whole extract, in regard to nitre, is written in general without order. The vessels, no doubt, were of clay; but whether he means in what he adds that they were not burnt but only baked in the sun, or that before they were filled they were completely dried in the sun, has been determined by no commentator. To me the latter is the more probable. Pliny also mentions another circumstance in regard to the burning of the Egyptian _nitrum_; namely, that it must be done in a close vessel, otherwise it would decrepitate or fly off. This is perfectly intelligible, when it is considered that it contained a great deal of common salt, which alone possessed the property of decrepitating; and it is well known in mineralogy that native soda, and even that which in modern times has been introduced into our collections from Tripoli, and of which I have in my possession a specimen, contains common salt[1204], and often in cubic crystals. Pliny had just reason to add, that _nitrum_ otherwise does not properly decrepitate. The ancients were well acquainted with the resemblance of their _nitrum_ to lime, and especially of that which was burnt. On this account, because the Egyptian was exported after it had been burnt, it could easily be mixed with quicklime, or, as Pliny says, be adulterated. But the proof which he gives he does not seem to have thoroughly understood. The Egyptian must at all times have been caustic (_pungens_) even without lime; but that which was mixed with lime could not so speedily or completely dissolve on the tongue as that which was pure, and left behind it more earth. What he says of a test by the smell, I cannot understand in any other manner than that burnt lime, when moistened with water, diffused that disagreeable vapour observed in apartments the walls of which have been newly plastered; though when the quantity is small this is hardly perceptible. If I understand Theophrastus[1205] properly, he seems to say, that if _nitrum_ be burnt as soon as it is dug up, it communicates heat to water in the same manner as lime. It may here be seen how great a resemblance the ancients found between their _nitrum_, alkaline earth and lime. The similarity of wood-ashes to the _nitrum_ of the ancients, which they acknowledged, proves also that it was in reality an alkaline salt. We are told by Theophrastus[1206] that _nitrum_ was said to be produced from oak-ashes; and Pliny[1207], who borrowed from this writer, remarks that it was certain the ashes of that wood were nitrous. He ascribes also to burnt wine-lees the nature and properties of _nitrum_[1208]. Nay he considers as a kind of _nitrum_ those saline ashes which, in many countries destitute of salt, were used for seasoning food, and which were prepared by pouring sea-water or salt brine over burning piles of wood, gradually and in small quantities, so that the fire was not extinguished, by which means the water evaporated, leaving the salt behind, but mixed indeed with charcoal, ashes, earth, and alkaline salts; consequently it must have been moist, or at any rate nauseous, if not refined by a new solution. This method of preparing or boiling salt, which perhaps is the oldest, has been mentioned by various writers; but many of them, through ignorance or neglect, have not told us that sea-water or brine was employed, as they speak in such a manner as if any kind and even fresh water had been used for that purpose. Varro relates that he saw this process employed on the Rhine[1209]. Pliny says[1210] that oak timber had before been burnt for that purpose. In another place he mentions a similar process among the Gauls and the Germans[1211], as Tacitus does among the Hermanduri and the Catti[1212]. The former also states, on the authority of Theophrastus, that the Umbri burnt salt in the like manner[1213]. It is however certain that Pliny and other ancient writers often quote from Theophrastus what, at present, is not to be found in the works of that naturalist, but in those of his preceptor Aristotle[1214]. Pliny adds, that this paltry method of obtaining salt had been long given up; and this indeed was the natural consequence of increased civilization. It is however certain that it was long continued in many countries, and in some still exists. About two centuries ago the inhabitants of the province of Zeeland, descendants perhaps of the Catti, used no other salt than what they obtained in the like manner, from mud thrown up by the sea, which they burned and moistened with sea-water, as we are told by Lemnius, who was himself a native of that country. Boxhorn says, in his annotations on the above-quoted passage of Tacitus, that he saw a painting at Zirkzee, in which the whole process was represented. It is probable that salt was boiled exactly in the same manner as at some of the Sleswic islands, described by Denkwerth[1215], from whose account it is seen that the _glebæ marinæ_, of which Lemnius speaks, consisted of mud mixed with roots growing in them; and that the salt when afterwards refined was called there Frisic, in all probability because the inhabitants had learned to make it from their ancestors the Frieslanders. I remember somewhere to have read that salt was made for a long time in this manner by the so-called Wurst-Frieslanders, in the country of Wurst, belonging to the duchy of Bremen. The inhabitants also of the Austrian part of Moldavia, or Buccowina as it is called, still use a salt, which they do not boil, but burn with their superfluous wood, in the like manner from the brine of a saline spring. A member of the former Academy of Brussels[1216] took the trouble to examine the process as described by the ancients, and obtained, as might certainly have been expected, a highly alkaline kind of common salt, similar to that which Pliny, not without reason, considered as a sort of _nitrum_, because undoubtedly it may oftener have been an alkaline carbonate than common salt. Boerhaave[1217], in quoting the passages of the ancients, did not reflect that, during the incineration of the wood, salt water was poured over it. He considered the whole process as a burning of potash, and thought that the salt obtained was fit for use only because it was made according to the manner of Tachenius. That indeed gives a carbonated salt, which is almost saponaceous, and so mixed with various parts of the burnt plants that it is much milder, consequently fitter for use than common soda or pearlash can be; but that salt was not so much of the Tachenian kind as a species of common salt superabundant in alkali. If the _nitrum_ was carbonated alkali, there is reason to suppose that the ancients must have occasionally mentioned in their writings that it effervesced with acids. With the mineral acids indeed they were not acquainted; but they had vinegar, and that _nitrum_ produced with this an effervescence had been known in the oldest times. A very clear allusion to this circumstance is found in the book of Proverbs, chap. xxv. ver. 20; where Luther however translates the word by _chalk_. Jerome, whose explanation I have already quoted, was in some degree acquainted with this phænomenon; and therefore to him the comparison of Solomon was intelligible[1218]. But at present I can produce no proofs from Greek writers; though they might have occurred during the use of _nitrum_ in medicine, in consequence of which it was often put into vinegar. We shall be further convinced what _nitrum_ really was, when the uses to which it was applied, as mentioned in the works of the ancients, are considered. The most common, as soap was not then known, appears to have been in washing, a purpose for which our saltpetre would not be fit; besides, it is at all times too scarce and too dear. I shall not here adduce any proofs of its being employed in this manner, as they often occur, and as several have been already given in the preceding volume[1219]. Many salves and cosmetics were prepared with _nitrum_; and in all probability articles of this kind, used chiefly among the women, are to be understood by the term _nitron parthenicon_, which occurs in Nicholas Myrepsius, in the beginning of the fourteenth century; _matronicon_, mentioned by the same, and by Alexander of Tralles, about the year 565; and the _nitrum matronale_ of Marcellus Empiricus, in the fifth century. That the use of it for washing still continues in the East, is confirmed in various books of travels. The oldest glass, of the preparation of which any account is to be found in history, was made by means of _nitrum_ or mineral alkali. For though I doubt that it could have been produced on the sandy banks of the Belus, where some merchants, when cooking, supported their pots with lumps of _nitrum_[1220], because sand is not so easily brought to a state of fusion; it at any rate remains certain, that this supposed fusion with our saltpetre is altogether impossible. The use of _nitrum_ for painting announces, without doubt, an alkaline carbonate, and not saltpetre[1221]; and the case is the same with the various uses in the cookery of the ancients, many of which we have still retained. It was added to bread in baking, according to Pliny[1222], in the stead of salt, but probably to promote its rising, for which purpose it is still employed by the Egyptians, as potash was by our bakers. For this use the mineral alkali was formerly brought from the Levant to France, till it was declared by the physicians to be injurious to the health[1223]. When meat which was too fresh was to be dressed, it was put into _nitrum_[1224], in order to make it tender; and, according to Forskäl and others, this is still practised in the East. Our cooks also know that smoked meat, fish and other dried provisions become more tender when placed in a ley of potash, or when a little potash is added while they are boiling. _Nitrum_, however, was employed for curing articles of food which people wished to preserve. This appears to contradict what has been mentioned above; but in all probability a caustic sort was used for the former purpose; but for the latter a mild kind, mixed with a great deal of common salt. There were so many species, that some of them might have been applied to quite contrary purposes. As I conjecture, the use of _nitrum_ for causing chestnuts and other husky fruits to boil soft, was also known: to produce the same effect, potash is at present thrown among boiling lentils and peas. I am inclined to think that for this reason Apicius caused chestnuts to be boiled with nitre. It is highly probable that this effect of alkaline carbonates induced agriculturists to believe that beans, peas, lentils and other leguminous fruits, if steeped, before they were sown, in water in which nitre had been dissolved, or if the dung spread over the earth had been mixed with nitre, the future product could be more easily boiled soft[1225]. However useful this addition may be in cookery, it would produce little effect on seed; and it appears to me that the old agriculturists placed little confidence in the last-mentioned use, because they were not agreed in regard to the result. Virgil and others seem to expect from it an increase of the fruit[1226]; but others, security against beetles, which eat the fruit and leave the husks empty[1227]. When cabbages were transplanted they were strewed over with nitre, and by these means were said to come sooner to maturity[1228]. Radishes also were treated in the same manner, or besprinkled with nitrous water, in order to make them more tender[1229]. A common method employed by the ancient cooks to give a beautiful green colour to pickled or boiled vegetables, was to add _nitrum_ to them while boiling; but this effect could be produced by _natrum_, and not by the _nitrum_ of the moderns, or that neutral salt called saltpetre[1230]. Among the oldest accounts of _nitrum_ is that where it is mentioned as being employed for embalming dead bodies. It would be tiresome to read over and examine everything written on that subject by the learned; but this much I think is clear, that either the flesh, and in general the softer parts of the body could be corroded in the course of seventy days by the Egyptian nitrum[1231], which, as above shown, was burnt, and in general mixed with unslaked lime, and consequently caustic[1232]; or that the moist parts could be desiccated by carbonate alkali, in the same manner as the manufacturers of parchment purify and dry their skins by the application of chalk. That saltpetre in no case could be useful for this purpose needs hardly be mentioned. The ancient physicians, who were unacquainted with our numerous class of salts, employed their _nitrum_ in many ways, and for a great variety of mixtures; but no writer, as far as I know, ever took the trouble to examine these recipes, though it has long since been declared that _nitrum_ must have been potash or salt of tartar. Matthioli[1233] asserted, that those physicians would act very improperly who should prescribe our saltpetre where the ancients employed their _nitrum_; and indeed those in the least acquainted with the effects of salts must know, that all those extolled by the ancients announce carbonated alkalies. Thus burnt _nitrum_ was employed for cleaning black teeth, as at present many use tobacco ashes instead of tooth-powder. It is seen by the works of Aretæus and others, that burnt _nitrum_ was used as a caustic, till people learned in modern times to prepare the more active _causticum potentiale_, or _sal causticum_. What the ancients say of the taste of their _nitrum_ seems, however, not entirely applicable to pure carbonated alkali; and much less, or not at all, to our saltpetre. Had they meant the latter, they would certainly not have failed to mention the sensation of coolness which it occasions when applied to the tongue. Galen and Aetius say, that _nitrum_ is as bitter as gall; but Serapio ascribes to it a saline taste, with a small degree of bitterness; as does also Pliny, only that for bitterness he substitutes the word sharpness. The names of tastes, however, are as uncertain as the names of the colours which occur in the works of the ancients. Both certainly deserve to be more accurately examined, and to be defined by comparing the things to which these names are given. Prosper Alpinus, however, is of opinion that what the ancients called _amarum_, is not inapplicable to the taste of _natrum_. The ancients mention various springs and streams which contained what they called _nitrum_[1234]; but nitrous water, according to the present acceptation of the word, that is, water which contains saltpetre, does not exist; and if credit is to be given to Marggraf and others, that they observed traces of saltpetre in some kinds of water, the instances must have been so rare that mention of them could not be expected among the ancients. Their nitrous water was undoubtedly alkaline, and this indeed is not scarce. Such water was recommended by the ancient physicians, both for bathing and drinking[1235]; and Pliny says, it was singular that the salt of such water would not shoot into crystals, like common salt, which is undoubtedly true[1236]. Alkaline water of this kind, such as that of Armenia, was used for washing, and also by fullers. In Egypt, at present, people wash in the same manner with _nitrum_. It appears to me that many kinds of water, which were only impure and not potable on account of their nauseous taste, were considered by the ancients as nitrous. This seems to be proved by the means which they propose for rendering nitrous water fit to be drunk; that is, by throwing into it clay, or some grains of barley[1237]. In the like manner, I saw the brewers at Amsterdam improve their dirty water, in some degree, by putting into it kneaded clay, and allowing it to sink to the bottom. One foundation more for my assertion may be found, I think, in the name _borax_. The ancient _nitrum_ by the Arabians was called _Bauracon_ or _Baurach_. When that salt, which at present is everywhere called borax, became known to the Arabians, it was at first generally considered as a kind of nitre, and on that account called _Baurach_, because in most of its properties it approached near to the _nitrum_ of the ancients, that is, the _natrum_ of the present day. But afterwards, when the difference became known, our borax, at least in Europe, retained exclusively the general name of _Baurach_, from which at length was formed the present word _borax_. My conclusion therefore is, that the _nitrum_ of the ancients must have been mineral alkali; otherwise it is impossible that our borax, which till modern times was reckoned to be mineral alkali, should have been considered as a _nitrum_. For many centuries past, the people in Africa and Asia, and also in Spain and Sicily, have cultivated some kinds of plants, which they dry and then burn to ashes. By regulating the fire in a particular manner, they cause these ashes to assume a certain degree of concretion, or vitrification, by which means they are formed into solid cakes of a grey colour, interspersed with many white and black spots. This substance, which in consequence of the vitrification does not become moist in the air, is broken into fragments, and sent to every part of Europe under the name of _soda_, for the use of the glass-houses, soap-boilers, dyers, and for other purposes. These plants were undoubtedly first cultivated and employed in Europe by the Arabians, who made known the use of them. Those first or chiefly employed were named by them _axnan_, _usnan_, _usnen_, or _uscnanon_; and also _Hasciscio alcali_, that is, _herba kali_, the plant or herb kali, because the name _kali_, or, with the article prefixed, _al kali_, was not given to the plant but to the half-vitrified ashes _kali_. Hence the chemists call salts obtained from the ashes of plants, alkaline salts. I do not know how old this appellation may be; but it is to be found in Vincent Bellovacensis and in the interpolated writings of Geber and Avicenna, and particularly in a passage quoted by the former from an old alchemist named Jahie, where it is called _sal alchali_[1238]. All these salts formerly were considered as nitrous salts, or a kind of _nitrum_. It was indeed soon observed that soda and wood-ashes, which from the earliest periods had been burnt in woody districts, and which are now called potash, were not all of the same nature; but when the difference between the mineral and vegetable alkalies began to be studied, it was then known that soda contains the former, that is, our _natrum_, and potash the latter, but both indeed often rendered impure by earthy and foreign saline particles; and that there are many plants from the ashes of which mineral and not vegetable alkali is obtained. A question now arises, How old in the Levant is the method of preparing this _natrum_ from the ashes of plants? Michaelis is of opinion that it is mentioned in Malachi, chap. iii. ver. 2; which passage I shall give according to Luther’s translation: “Who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like the fire of the goldsmith, and the soap of the scourer. He will sit and melt and purify the silver, and make pure like gold and silver.” This learned man here seems to think that the sacred writer alludes to refining the noble metals, and that the word _borith_ means soda, which indeed may serve as a flux in the purification of them. I at first considered this meaning as true; but, on closer examination, I am fully convinced that we have both erred. Those who read without prejudice the above passage of Malachi, must remark, that a double comparison or double image is employed. The messenger there promised was to separate the good from the bad, the clean from the unclean. The first occupation is compared with the labour of the gold-refiner; the other, with that of the scourer of clothes. The first image is afterwards heightened, because the poet, in all probability, was desirous of applying the separation of the ignoble parts, such as slag, by means of fire, as being the stronger image which denotes punishment, in a closer manner to the Levites and priests. At the time of the poet, before the invention of soap, people employed for washing either nitre or the saponaceous juice of certain plants, which I have already endeavoured to determine. The _borith_ of the washer there expressly named, was undoubtedly one of these soap plants, and not the half-vitrified ashes either of soda or potash. This passage of Malachi was so understood in the oldest times. Professor Tychsen, a true pupil and intimate friend of Michaelis, to whose opinion I subjected my doubts, assured me that Michaelis was never able to convince him of the justness of his exposition; especially as Jerome[1239], without the least hesitation, understood _borith_ to be a plant growing in Palestine, and used there for washing; and as the Greek translators, who were much nearer to the period of the poet, and could not be unacquainted with a thing so much used, have translated _borith_ by the word ποα, a plant. In Jeremiah, chap. ii. ver. 22[1240], both the substances formerly used for washing, _nitrum_ and the soap-plant, are so clearly named, that Michaelis was obliged to admit that we cannot understand there soda or potash, but a ley or soap, the last of which however was not at that time known. But, to speak the truth, potash and soda would not be altogether unfit for washing; at any rate, not less fit than the _nether_ or _nitrum_ there named. What may serve, however, to refute entirely the opinion of Michaelis is, that no proof has yet been found that soda is of so great antiquity. For my part, I am acquainted with no older mention of it than that which occurs in the works of the more modern Arabian physicians, Avicenna, Serapio, and others[1241]. All these grounds afford sufficient proof that the _nitrum_ of the ancients was our _natrum_, and not our saltpetre. But still, in the account given by the ancients of that salt, there remain many things inexplicable. Thus, for example, no one can accurately define the epithets, _chalastricum_, _halmirhaga_, _agrium_, _spuma nitri_, _aphronitrum_, and others, because they do not indicate different kinds, as already said, but accidental properties of the same salt. Without enlarging further on this subject, I shall only remark that Pliny admits a natural and an artificial kind of _nitrum_, and this division is adopted by Serapio; but the latter term has not the meaning which we affix to it at present. The ancients were acquainted with no other than native _nitrum_, which they called artificial only when it required a little more trouble and art to obtain it. Most of the physicians recommend red _nitrum_, which is mentioned also by many of the modern travellers. When Prosper Alpinus was in Egypt the rose-red _nitrum_ cost twice as much as the white. The red colour, in all probability, arises from a metallic admixture; yet the red _nitrum_ may be purer than the other, as red or violet rock-salt is often clearer and purer than that which is colourless. One of the darkest parts in the history of _nitrum_ is the following passage of Pliny: “Faciunt ex his vasa, nec non frequenter liquatum cum sulphure, coquentes in carbonibus.” The latter words he seems soon after to repeat: “Sal nitrum sulphuri concoctum in lapidem vertitur.” From these words J. Rhodius[1242] concludes that _nitrum fixum_ was at that time known, because he considered _nitrum_ to be saltpetre; but in that case with the sulphur, Glaser’s sal polychrest must properly have been produced. This, however, was not the case, because _nitrum_ was fixed alkali. The ancients therefore, when they placed it with sulphur in a crucible upon burning coals must have obtained liver of sulphur, which when it cools is hard, but soon becomes moist when exposed to the air. But I will not venture to determine whether anything of this kind is to be supposed in Pliny, who did not himself fully understand the subject on which he touches. The account of vessels made of _nitrum_ is still more singular. Michaelis conjectured[1243] that articles of various kinds were cut out of this substance, not for real use but merely for ornament, in the same manner as similar things are cut out of rock-salt in Transylvania, many specimens of which I have in my collection[1244]. But even if _nitrum_ had been compact and strong enough for this purpose, there could not be the same inducement to employ it as rock-salt, which, in consequence of its solidity, transparency, brightness and smoothness, appears to be capable of furnishing vessels equal to those made of the most beautiful crystal. Dalechamp seems to explain the whole as applicable to glazing; but in this case _nitrum_ could serve only as a flux. Though it can be certainly proved that the _nitrum_ of the ancients was an alkaline salt, it is difficult to determine the time when our saltpetre was discovered or made known. As many have conjectured that it was a component part of the Greek fire, invented about the year 678, which, in all probability, gave rise to the invention of gunpowder, I examined the prescriptions for the preparation of it. The oldest, and perhaps the most certain, is that given by the princess Anna Comnena; in which however I find only resin, sulphur and oil, but not saltpetre. Klingenstierna[1245] therefore judged very properly, that all recipes in which saltpetre occurs are either forged or of modern invention. Of this kind are those which Scaliger, at least according to his own account, found in Arabic works, and in which mention is made of _oleum de nitro_ and _sal petræ_[1246]. But it does not occur in that prescription given by Marcus Græcus, and copied by Albertus Magnus, who died in 1280[1247]. I must still believe that the first certain mention of saltpetre will be found in the oldest account of the preparation of gunpowder, which, in my opinion, became known in Europe in the thirteenth century, about the same time that the use of the Greek fire, of which there were many kinds, began to be lost. Among the oldest information on this subject is that found in the above-quoted work of Albertus Magnus, and the writings of Roger Bacon, who died in 1278. It is doubted whether the first-mentioned treatise belongs to Albertus; but it is certain that the author, whoever he may have been, and also Bacon, both derived their information from the same source. When M. von Arretin lately announced that he was about to publish a manuscript preserved in the electoral library at Munich, which contained the true recipe for making the Greek fire and the oldest for gunpowder, the same writing, as appears, was printed from two manuscripts in the library at Paris. I have now before me a copy of it, which was transmitted to the library of our university by M. Laporte Dutheil, conservateur des Manuscrits de la Bibliothèque[1248]. It contains many recipes, but only with a few variations, as in Albertus Magnus; and it may be evidently seen that Roger Bacon employed this writing, which is mentioned by Jebb in the preface to his edition, from a copy preserved in the library of Dr. Mead. Of this Marcus Græcus nothing at present is known. According to some, he lived in the ninth century; but others, with more probability, place him in the thirteenth. Of his work, perhaps, we have only a translation; for, from the surname Græcus, there is reason to think that the original was written in the Greek language. I must, however, remark that Cardan, where he gives directions for making a fire which can be kindled by water, names Marcus Gracchus, but not Græcus. Scaliger, who, as is very probable, had this writing also, makes no mention of it or its author. This Marcus speaks of saltpetre three times; first under the name of _sal petrosum_, which occurs also in the same prescription in Albertus Magnus; but the addition, which Albertus does not repeat, is very remarkable. In my opinion, _scrophulæ contra lapides_ means the incrustation found on walls, which was represented as a kind of leprosy. The addition of ashes, or alkaline salts, the author either forgot or omitted, because perhaps he did not consider it as indispensably necessary. In another place it is said, _Lapis qui dicitur petra solis_, or, as it is in other manuscripts, _salis_; but whether saltpetre is here understood I will not venture to determine. In a third passage we find the words _de sale petroso_, or _de salepetro_. In the works of Bacon the term _sal petræ_ occurs at least three times. According to Casiri, the term _pulvis nitratus_ is to be found in an Arabic manuscript, the author of which lived about the year 1249[1249]. If the work of Geber, already quoted, be genuine, and if this writer lived, as some think, in the eighth century, it would be the oldest where saltpetre is mentioned, in a prescription for an _aqua solutiva_ or _dissolutiva_, which almost seems to be aqua regia. I have not observed the name _sal petræ_ in the works of Vincent Bellovacensis, who lived in the thirteenth century. In a word, I am more than ever inclined to accede to the opinion of those who believe that gunpowder was invented in India, and brought by the Saracens from Africa to the Europeans, who however improved the preparation of it, and found out different ways of employing it in war, as well as small arms and cannon[1250]. In no country could saltpetre, and the various uses of it, be more easily discovered than in India, where the soil is so rich in nitrous particles that nothing is necessary but to lixiviate it in order to obtain saltpetre; and where this substance is so abundant, that almost all the gunpowder used in the different wars with which the sovereigns of Europe have tormented mankind was made from Indian saltpetre[1251]. If it be true that saltpetre was not known in Europe till the thirteenth century, neither gunpowder nor aquafortis could have been made before that time; for the former cannot be prepared without saltpetre, nor the latter without nitre. But if it be true that this salt was known at a much earlier period in India, it is not improbable that both gunpowder and aquafortis were used by the Indians and the Arabians before they were employed by the Europeans, especially as the former were the first teachers of chemistry to the latter. In my opinion, what I have already related proves this in regard to gunpowder; and what I shall here add will afford an equal proof in regard to aquafortis. It is difficult to discover the first mention of mineral acids in the writings of the ancient chemists. In the course of their numerous experiments they obtained indeed, at an early period, acids, the utility of which they extol; but each concealed the process by which they were made; and as they had no method of obtaining them pure, they were for a long time unacquainted with the difference between the kinds. Their prescriptions, when they are found, are so contradictory and so carelessly written, that it is almost impossible to conjecture which of the known acids forms the principal component parts in their recipes or mixtures. It appears to me, that the first intelligible account of aquafortis occurs in the writings of the Arabians, or of the pupils of Arabian chemists. At present I am acquainted with none older than that to be found in the works of Geber. For though I do not believe that those of which we have Latin translations belong to a Geber of the eighth or ninth century, I am ready to admit that they may be, at any rate, of the twelfth. This appears probable, because about that period aquafortis and various arts are oftener mentioned, and in a much clearer manner, in these writings. It is to be regretted in the history of chemistry, that it is impossible to determine the period of the Greek chemist or alchemist known under the name of Synesius; but it cannot be doubted that he borrowed a great deal from the works of the Arabians. This Synesius, among the chemical solvents, mentions water of saltpetre, which might be considered as aquafortis[1252]. But, as he mentions at the same time _aqua fæcis_, he appears to me to allude to the _nitrum_ of the ancients, not to our saltpetre, and in general to strong alkaline leys, which indeed are capable of dissolving many bodies. The monk Theophilus, of whom I have already spoken, and who in all probability lived in the twelfth century, appears also to have been acquainted with aquafortis; for in some of the passages quoted from his works by Raspe[1253], he speaks of an acid which dissolved all metals. In the writings of Vincent Bellovacensis, in the thirteenth century, some traces, but very doubtful, are found of aquafortis. Where he mentions the different sorts of gold he speaks of dissolving it, but by this expression he does not allude to its treatment with fire, which he speaks of separately[1254]. In another place he mentions the different solvents, and among these names vegetable acids, a water of sal-ammoniac, and a water obtained from alum by distillation. He here means undoubtedly a mineral acid[1255]. Michael Meier, the most learned chemist of the seventeenth century, says that Vincentius speaks of aquafortis as of a secret; but the passage I have not yet been able to find[1256]. Spielman states that Lullius, who died in 1315, in the eightieth year of his age, gave an account of his obtaining aquafortis from saltpetre by the addition of vitriol, and that Basilius Valentin was acquainted with the use of clay for the same purpose. Picus Mirandula however declares it to be uncertain whether Arnoldus de Villa Nova was acquainted with the acid of saltpetre in the fourteenth century. It appears to be an old tradition that this acid was first employed at Venice, by some Germans, for separating the noble metals, and conveyed thence as an article of merchandize to every part of Europe. The persons who prepared it were there narrowly watched, in order that the process might not become known. They were employed chiefly for separating the gold from the Spanish silver, and by these means acquired great riches. Hence arose the report that the people of Venice understood the art of making gold; and it is certain that in many countries the gold refiners were for a long time considered as gold makers; but in no period were there more gold makers than in that when separation in the moist way became known. I can however give less account of this art of the Venetians than of the introduction of it into France in the fifteenth or the beginning of the sixteenth century. William Budæus, who was born in 1467, and died in 1540, speaks of it in his book, printed for the first time in 1516, as a thing entirely new at that period[1257]. A man of low extraction, named Le Cointe, first undertook to separate gold from silver at Paris, by means of a water which Budæus calls _aqua chrysulca_. It is very remarkable, that by means of this water he could separate the smallest particle of gold from silver, and from every other metal; nay, he could even take from vessels their gilding without altering their form. By this art he acquired great wealth; which together with his secret descended to his son, who at the time was the only gold refiner at Paris. He adds, that the art was exceedingly dangerous as well as unhealthy, and required great precaution. The possessor of it, when he became rich, left the execution of the work to a servant, whom he directed at a distance, that he might not expose himself to the pernicious fumes of the effervescing liquor. The fumes of the acid derived from saltpetre are indeed prejudicial to the health; but the danger has been much exaggerated, and no doubt with a view to deter people from attempting to discover the art, and to furnish a pretence for raising the price of the production[1258]. Budæus relates also, that the gold was left behind undissolved. The silver only was dissolved, and by another art was separated from the water and washed. It may here be easily perceived that Le Cointe employed aquafortis; but if he was able to loosen the gold from gilt vessels without destroying them, he must have used aqua regia, which consequently was not then unknown. From other information, it appears that the mint at Paris purchased the art from Le Cointe’s son, but still kept it a secret. On this account Francis I., by a decree issued at Blois on the 19th of March 1540, authorized the raising the value of coin, in order to defray the expense of fuel and assaying-water. In the middle of the seventeenth century, the preparation of aquafortis and the process of assaying in the moist way were fully known in France. At any rate, in the month of January 1637, the distillers obtained a guild letter, in which aquafortis is mentioned among the articles sold by them. When saltpetre became necessary to governments for the manufacture of gunpowder, they endeavoured to obtain it at as cheap a rate as possible. No one before suspected that rulers would be justified in exclusively carrying away the incrustation of walls from private houses, which, when it could be used, became _accessorium fundi_. But the idea of regalia, so often abused, was extended so wide under various pretences, that the saltpetre regale and the letting of it was one of the severest oppressions to which the people were exposed by their rulers, and which occasioned almost as bitter complaints as the hunting regale, founded on no better grounds. I shall not here attempt to delineate the sufferings which were thus occasioned in many countries; they are still fresh in remembrance. The oldest mention of this hated regale which I myself have found is of the year 1419. At that time, Gunther, archbishop of Magdeburg, granted to some person the right of searching out saltpetre and boiling it, during a year, in the district of Gibichenstein, for which he was to pay a barrel of saltpetre, and deliver to the archbishop the remainder at the rate of five cross-groschens per pound. The succeeding archbishop, Frederick, let in the year 1460, to a burgher of Halle, all the earth and the saltpetre that could be collected from it in the bailiwick of Gibichenstein, for four years, at the annual rent of a barrel of good refined saltpetre. On the same conditions, bishop Ernest, in 1477, let to some one for his lifetime the collection of the saltpetre. In 1544, a certain person obtained the collection of saltpetre from two heaps of rubbish before the gates at Halle. The magistrates of Halle also in 1545 had a saltpetre-work and a powder-mill. In the year 1560, John VI., archbishop of Triers, gave to some one permission to search for and dig up saltpetre. In 1583, the saltpetre regale was confirmed by a Brandenburg decree as a thing long known, and the case was the same with a Hessian of the year 1589. It is very probable that this example was soon followed by most sovereigns; but even if they had collected and scraped together the nitrous incrustation of all the walls in Europe, they certainly would not have found a quantity of saltpetre sufficient for the gunpowder used in the numerous wars which took place, had not a much greater supply been obtained from India, and particularly from Patna. I do not know whether the Portuguese brought this article to Europe; but that it was imported at a very early period by the Dutch is proved by the oldest ladings of their return ships; and they at length found means to appropriate this branch of trade so entirely to themselves, that the other Europeans for a long time could not obtain any saltpetre in India. In the seventeenth century, when chemistry began to be studied with more care and attention in Europe, and particularly in Germany, and the component parts and production of saltpetre became better known, many conceived the idea of improving the methods of obtaining it in Europe so much, that it might be possible to dispense with the Indian saltpetre, and flattered themselves with the hopes of thence deriving great advantages. Some proposed to fill tubes with putrifiable substances and earth capable of fixing of the nitric acid; others preferred building vaults of these substances, and Glauber recommended the filling of pits with them. The proposal, however, which met with the greatest approbation was that of building walls of them. Through a confidence in this idea, towns and villages were compelled to erect and maintain a certain number of saltpetre walls, under the most gracious promise that the collectors of saltpetre should no longer be allowed to spoil private dwellings, or render them unhealthful. But experience has shown that all the means and coercive measures hitherto employed have rendered the European saltpetre much dearer than that obtained by commerce from Bengal. This will be readily comprehended, when it is known that earth richly impregnated with saltpetre abounds in India, and that it may be extracted by lixiviation without any addition, and brought to crystallize in that warm climate without the aid of fire; that the price of labour there is exceedingly low; that this salt is brought from India instead of ballast by all the commercial nations of Europe, where the competition of the sellers prevents the price from ever being extravagantly high, while the preparation of it in Europe, in consequence of the still increasing price of labour, fuel and ashes, is always becoming dearer. This regale will at length be everywhere scouted. In the duchy of Wurtemberg and the Prussian states, where it was most rigidly enforced, in consequence of an urgent representation from the States it was abolished in 1798; but in both countries an indemnification was given to government for the loss. The case also has been the same in Sweden[1259]. In the duchy of Brunswick it was soon suffered to drop; but in the electoral dominions it never was introduced. [The greater part of our nitre is derived from Bengal, where, as in Egypt, Persia, Spain, &c., it exists in the soil. It is separated by lixiviation and crystallization. In France, Sweden and some other countries it is prepared artificially in nitre-beds. These are formed of various animal matters, mixed with lime or mortar-rubbish; the mixture is watered and stirred occasionally, and allowed to remain for a considerable time. The whole is then lixiviated and decomposed by carbonate of potash. The nitre is then separated and purified by crystallization. In some cases wood-ashes are mixed with the animal matters; the decomposition with potash is then unnecessary. It is a question whether the nitric acid in the nitre arises from the nitrogen of the atmosphere or that in the animal matters. Dr. Davy has found nitre in a cave at Ceylon, where no nitrogenous matter was present; and in some parts of India, Spain, and some other countries, at a distance from all habitations, immense quantities of nitre are reproduced in soils which have been washed the year before. Nitre is directly brought into this country from Calcutta and Madras, in bags containing from 150 lbs. to 175 lbs. each. From 200,000 cwts. to 260,000 cwts. are annually imported into the United Kingdom. In making gunpowder, the components, the sulphur, nitre, and charcoal should be as pure as possible, and reduced to the finest possible powder; they are sifted and mixed in the proper proportions. The mixture is then made into a cake with water, and ground between calcareous millstones. It is then granulated through sieves in another mill, and again sifted. It is then polished and hardened by revolving rapidly in a cask, and finally dried. The proportions of the constituents vary in different countries; at Waltham Abbey they are seventy-five nitre, fifteen charcoal and ten sulphur. The quantity of gunpowder consumed in this country is enormous; moreover, 4,000,000 lbs. are annually exported, the greater part of which is sent to the western coast of Africa. The force of the explosion of gunpowder is owing to the sudden disengagement of gaseous products; these consist of nitrogen, carbonic oxide, carbonic acid, and sulphurous acid gases; and their volume has been calculated to amount to 2000 times the bulk of the powder.] FOOTNOTES [1190] To this subject belong the following works:--Ars Magna Artilleriæ, Auct. Cas. Siomienowicz. Amst. 1650, fol. p. 61. The author thinks that the nitrum of the ancients is not at present known. Natural History of Nitre, by W. Clarke. Lond. 1670, 8vo. It is here said that the nitrum of the ancients was impure saltpetre, and that the latter is produced from the former by purification. G. C. Schelhameri de Nitro, cum veterum, tum nostro commentatio, Amst. 1709, 8vo, contains good philological observations, particularly in regard to the period, but leaves the question undetermined. Saggi sul ristabilimento dell’ antica arte de’ Greci e Romani pittori, del Sig. Doct. Vin. Requeno. Parma, 1787, 2 tomi in 8vo, ii. pp. 95, 131: a learned but diffuse work. He thinks that the _nitrum_ of the ancients was our saltpetre; and what others consider as proofs of its being mineralized alkali, he understands as indicating alkalized saltpetre. I am not, however, convinced. Before I ascribe to the ancients a knowledge of our saltpetre, I must be shown in their writings properties of their _nitrum_ sufficient to satisfy me that it was the same substance. Commentat. de nitro Plinii, in J. D. Michaelis commentationes. Bremæ 1784, 4to. The author only illustrates the account of Pliny, and states what, according to his opinion, we are to understand in it in regard to alkali, and what in regard to our saltpetre. [1191] [Since the discovery of the immense deposits of nitrate of soda in Peru, this salt, from its being much cheaper, has replaced the nitrate of potash in the manufacture of aquafortis, but it is not adapted to the making of gunpowder owing to its deliquescent property.] [1192] I found the account of the Portuguese saltpetre in Mémoires Instructifs pour un Voyageur. The author of this work was the well-known Theodore king of Corsica. [1193] More accounts of native saltpetre may be found in Recueil de Mémoires sur la Formation du Salpetre. Par les Commissaires de l’Academie. Paris, 1776, 8vo. Del Nitro Minerale Memoria dell’ ab. Fortis, 1787, 8vo. [1194] The first, or one of the first, who was acquainted with and made known the cubic saltpetre, was professor John Bohn of Leipsic, in the Acta Eruditorum, 1683, p. 410; but with more precision in his Dissertat. Chymico-Physicæ, Lips. 1696, 8vo, p. 36. [1195] [It is scarcely necessary to inform the reader that the author understands the soda of commerce, which is a carbonate of soda, and not the hydrated or caustic soda of chemists.] [1196] [Crude soda or _kelp_ was formerly manufactured to a very large extent in the Highlands, by burning the sea-weed, but since the tax has been taken off salt, most of the soda of British commerce is made by decomposing this with chalk and some carbonaceous matter.] [1197] In like manner, a heap of dung covered with earth is lixiviated, and the result, without the addition of ashes, used as saltpetre. [1198] The passage of Jerome relating to Proverbs, xxv. 20, I here insert entire, because I shall often have occasion to employ it:--“Nitrum a Nitria provincia, ubi maxime nasci solet, nomen accepit. Nee multum a salis Ammoniaci specie distat. Nam sicut salem in litore maris fervor solis conficit, durando in petram aquas marinas, quas major vis ventorum, vel ipsius maris fervor in litoris ulteriora projecerit; ita in Nitria, ubi æstate pluviæ prolixiores tellurem infundunt, adest ardor sideris tantus, quod ipsas aquas pluviales per latitudinem arenarum concoquat in petram; salis quidem vel glaciei aspectui simillimam; sed nil gelidi rigoris, nil salsi saporis habentem, quæ tamen, juxta naturam salis, in caumate durare, et in nubilos, aere fluere ac liquefieri solet. Hanc indigenæ sumentes servant, et ubi opus extiterit, pro lomento utuntur. Unde Judæo peccanti dicit propheta Jeremias: Si laveris te nitro, et multiplicaveris tibi herbam borith, maculata es in iniquitate tua, dicit Dominus Deus. Crepitat autem in aqua quomodo calx viva; et ipsum quidem disperit, sed aquam lavationi habilem reddit; cujus natura cui sit apta figuræ, cernens Solomon ait: Acetum in nitro, qui cantat carmina cordi pessimo. Acetum quippe si mittatur in nitrum, protinus ebullit.” [1199] Herodot. ii. cap. 86 et 87. [1200] Histor. Ægypti Naturalis iii. 2. See also Forskäl Flora Ægyptiaco-Arabica, p. xlv. [1201] [Duhamel proved soda to be distinct from potash in 1736, Marggraf _confirmed_ it in 1758.] [1202] Lib. xxxi. cap. 10. [1203] De Simplic. Med. Facult. ix. Dioscorides also, v. 131, speaks as if it had been well known that _nitrum_ was commonly burnt. [1204] Phil. Transactions, 1771, vol. lxi. p. 567. [1205] De Igne, p. 435, ed. Heinsii, where he speaks of the heat produced in lime by slaking it. Aristotle also mentions together κονία and νίτρον, on account of similar properties. Problemat. i. 39. ed. Septalii, p. 71. [1206] Hist. Plant. iii. 9, p. 50. [1207] xxvi. 8. [1208] xiv. 20. [1209] De Re Rustica, lib. i. c. 7. Little, however, depended on the wood; the principal thing was the sprinkling with water. [1210] xxxi. 10. [1211] xxxi. 7. Here express mention is made of brine. [1212] Taciti Annal. xiii. 57. [1213] Lib. xxx. 7. [1214] This is particularly the case in regard to Aristot. Auscult. Mirab., as I have remarked in the preface to my edition. [1215] In the island of Dagebull, and also in Faretoft and Galmesbull, Frisio salt is made in the following manner. The inhabitants proceed along the coast in small vessels, and at low water go on shore on the mud, which they dig up till they come to a kind of earth called _torricht_; it is of a turfy nature, and interwoven with roots. This earth they convey to the islands, where they spread it out in the sun and leave it to dry, after which it is formed into a heap and burnt to ashes. What remains is again spread out, moistened and trod upon with the naked feet; the small stones and other useless parts are picked out, and being again dried and besprinkled with water, the ley is put into salt-pans and boiled into salt. [1216] Mémoires de l’Acad. de Bruxelles, 1777, i. p. 345. [1217] Elementa Chemiæ. Lugd. Bat. 1732, 4to, i. p. 767. [1218] Boyle considered the words of Solomon as a proof that _nether_ must be fixed alkali; and he was the more convinced of it when he saw nitre obtained from Egypt effervesce with acids. [1219] See the History of Soap in vol. i. [1220] Plin. xxxvi. 26, § 65. The use of nitrum in making glass is often mentioned. [1221] Plin. xxxi. 10. [1222] Lib. xxx. 10. [1223] Forskäl Flora, p. xlvi. [1224] Plutarchi Sympos. lib. vi. at the end. [1225] Theophrasti Histor. Plant. ii. 5.--Geopon. ii. 35, 2; and ii. 41.--Palladius, xii. tit. i. 3, p. 996. [1226] Virg. Georg. i. 193.--Plin. xviii. 7. 845.--Geopon. ii. 36, p. 184. [1227] Columella, ii. 10, 11. [1228] Plin. xix. 8, § 41.--Pallad. iii. 24, 6.--Geopon. xii. 17, 1.--Theophrast. de Causa Plant. vi. 14. [1229] Plin. xxxi. 10; and xix. 5, § 26, 10. [1230] Apicius, iii. 1, p. 70.--Martial, lib. xiii. ep. 17.--Plin. xix. 8, §41, 3; xxx. 10.--Columella, xi. 3, 23. [Carbonate of soda, as is well known, is still frequently used for this purpose in culinary operations.] [1231] Herodot. ii. 87. [1232] Our tanners use unslaked lime for a similar purpose. [1233] Annot. to Dioscorides, v. 89, p. 951. [1234] A catalogue of such waters may be found in Baccii Liber de Thermis. Patavii, 1711, fol. v. 5, 6, 7, p. 160. [Carbonate of soda occurs for instance in the celebrated mineral waters of Seltzer and Carlsbad, and also in the volcanic springs of Iceland, especially the Geyser.] [1235] Plin. xxxi. 6, § 32, p. 556. Vitruv. viii. 3, p. 158. [1236] xxxi. 10. [1237] Plin. xxiv. 1; xxxi. 3, § 22. Geopon. ii. 5, 14, p. 85. [1238] Speculum Naturæ, vii. 87, p. 480. [1239] Hieronym. ad Jerem. ii. 22. [1240] “For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord God.” [1241] In regard to the two plants _usnee_, _asne_, and _usnem_, _assuan_, see Avicennæ Canon. Medic. Venet. 1608, fol. pp. 338, 406,