Chapter XVI: Part 16

The sable seems to have been known much later than the ermine. Its real country is the most northern part of Asia, to which commerce was not extended till a late period; yet it is probable that it was known before the Russians became acquainted with Siberia, by means of the Permians, Woguls and Samoeides, at the end of the fifteenth century. It is also fully proved that the fine furs of Siberia were the production which induced the Russians to make a conquest of that country[770]. Besides, sables existed formerly in Permia, where at present they are very scarce. The numerous remains of antiquity still found in Siberia prove that at a very early period it was inhabited by a people who carried on commerce, and were well-acquainted with the arts.

Conrad Gesner believed that the name sable occurs for the first time in Albertus Magnus, who wrote in the thirteenth century, under the word _Cebalus_, or _Chebalus_. In the same century Marco Polo mentions, at least in the Latin translation, _zibellina pellis_, as a valuable kind of fur. But if _sabelum_ be the sable, as the similarity of the word seems to show, it must have been known in the twelfth century, and even earlier. The name _sabelum_ occurs in Alanus Insulanus, and Du Cange found _sabelinæ pelles_ as early as the year 1138, though _sabelum_ perhaps means the marten. _Gebellinica pellis_, _gibelini_ or _gibellini martores_, were mentioned in the eleventh century, and _sabellinæ_ and _gebellinicæ pelles_ were undoubtedly the same[771]. I shall not however enter further into this inquiry, which it appears would be endless, and at the same time of little benefit.

The marten, the fur of which approaches nearest to that of the sable, appears to be first mentioned by Martial, who says, speaking of an unsuccessful hunting excursion, that the hunter was overjoyed if he caught only a marten[772]. But the reading is very doubtful; for many, instead of _martes_, read _meles_; and the latter occurs in Varro, Pliny, and other writers, whereas the former is found nowhere else. In the middle ages, however, or at any rate in the twelfth century, _martures_, _mardrini_, and _marturinæ vestes_ frequently occur; and I can see no reason why they may not be considered as marten skins, a name which has been retained in all the European languages.

With as little certainty can it be determined what our forefathers meant by the words _vares_, _varii_, _vairus_, _vajus_, _varus_, _vayrus_, _veyrus_ or the _vair_ of the French, and under _griseum_ and _grisum_. That they belong to costly kinds of fur is universally admitted. Sometimes _varium_ and _griseum_ appear to be the same; and sometimes the former seems to be more valuable than the latter. That the former was spotted, or parti-coloured, is apparently announced by the name; for both the leopard and panther are by Pliny called _variæ_. What in heraldry is named by the French _vair_, and the Germans _eisenhütlein_, _vellus varium_, and which is considered by the former as the skin of an animal gray on the back and white on the belly[773], alludes to this also. Sometimes, however, it seems to signify a fur dress composed of differently-coloured pieces of fur sewed together. Most writers are of opinion that it means _grauwerk_, _petit-gris_, _vech_, _veh_, _vech_, _vehwammen_, also the squirrel; and there is certainly a species of that animal which might justify the name _varius_, as its skin is at present employed for variegated bordering or trimming; but I do not know whether _grauwerk_[774] could be so dear as _varium_ is said to have been, as it is among the productions of Europe, though the best at present comes from Siberia. The word _veeh_ is derived, as Frisch says, from the Italian _vaio_; the latter, according to Muratori[775], is formed from _varius_, and even at present a dress lined with fur is called _roba vaja_.

_Cirogillinæ pelles_, named by the council of Paris in the year 1212, were rabbit skins[776]. Rabbit warrens, so early as the thirteenth century, were not scarce in England; for in a letter of grace respecting the forests, in 1215, every proprietor was permitted to establish them on his own lands[777].

By the term _cattinæ pelles_[778], which are also often named, must undoubtedly be understood cats’ skins. In France, in the twelfth century, the skins of native animals were considered as of little value; but the Spanish and Italian were highly prized. The skins of the black fox, which at present are the dearest kind of furs, as a single one in Russia is often sold for six hundred and even a thousand roubles, occur in the thirteenth century, among the wares which were sent from the most northern countries to Europe[779]; and without doubt these were meant by Damiani in the passage above quoted[780].

Clothing made of the beaver skin occurs much earlier. It seems to be mentioned by Claudian[781] in the fourth century; and it is spoken of by Ambrosius[782], who lived at the same period. Sidonius Apollinaris, in the fifth century, called those who wore it _castorinati_. The scholiast of Juvenal, who indeed belongs to an unknown but much later period, has also _pelles bebrinæ_ or _beverinæ_. As the ermine was called the Pontic mouse, the beaver was named the Pontic dog.

I however firmly believe that this castor clothing was no more fur clothing, than our beaver hats are fur hats. At that time the hair was spun and wove; and Claudian, in my opinion, speaks of a worn-out beaver dress, which had nothing more left of that valuable fur but the name. This method of manufacturing beavers’ hair seems not to have been known in the time of Pliny; for though he speaks much of the castor, and mentions _pellis fibrina_[783] three times, he says nothing in regard to manufacturing the hair, or to beaver fur. As attempts, however, had then been made to manufacture the fur of the hare, it is probable that beaver hair began to be worn soon after. Isidorus, who lived nearly about that period, as he died in 636, reckons beaver hair, which he calls _fibrinum_, among the materials employed for making cloth[784]; and where he enumerates the different kinds of cloth, he mentions also _vestis fibrina_, and says that the warp was of beaver, and the woof of goats’ hair, perhaps the so-called camel hair[785]. An upper garment of this cloth was worn by the emperor Nicephorus II. Phocas, at his coronation in the year 963, which undoubtedly was not a castor pelisse; because fur clothing, as I shall soon prove, was not fashionable at the court of the Greek emperors[786].

It deserves here to be remarked, that furs began to be dyed so early as the twelfth century; and it appears that the colour was chiefly red, for we find _pelles rubricatæ arietum_, that is, sheep-skins dyed red; but Du Cange thinks he can prove that the skins of the marten and ermine were dyed of the same colour. This I can believe in regard to the ermine; but to dye the dark fur of the marten and sable would, in my opinion, be hardly possible. St. Bernard[787] says, that such red dyed leather in the twelfth century was called _gulæ_, which, with _Hermin engolé_ of the old poets, seems to signify the same thing, ermine skins dyed red.

When fur dresses became fashionable in Italy, they were soon spread all over Europe. At first the best indigenous furs were employed; but afterwards those of foreign countries, as being superior; and the dearer they were, the more they were esteemed. At every court they formed the state costume of the reigning family, and in a little time that of the richest nobility. In particular, the mantle, _cottes d’armes_ of the knights, which they drew over their cuirass or harness, was bordered with the costliest furs. It had no sleeves, and resembled the dress of ceremony worn by our heralds. On this account, as is well known, ermine and other kinds of fur became parts of the oldest coats of arms. Sometimes magnificence, in this respect, was carried to such an extravagant length, that moralists declaimed against it, while governments endeavoured to limit the use of furs by laws, and the clergy to prohibit them entirely. Many kinds, therefore, were retained only by the principal nobility, and others were forbidden.

Charlemagne, however, wore in winter a pelisse which covered his shoulders and breast; but being an enemy to all foreign dress, he employed only the furs of his native country; and, according to the statement of some manuscripts, otter skins alone[788]. It nevertheless appears that the costly oriental furs were then known at his court; for having gone out hunting with his suite, on a cold rainy holiday, he himself wore only a sheep’s skin; but the dresses of his attendants, who had become acquainted in Italy with the valuable articles in which the Venetians then dealt, consisted of foreign cloth and furs. These, when thoroughly drenched and dried at the fire, crumbled to pieces. The emperor then caused his sheep’s skin when dried to be rubbed, and showing it to his courtiers ridiculed them on their foreign fur dresses, which though expensive were of little use[789]. The imperial princesses, however, on holidays wore dresses ornamented with precious stones, gold, silver and silk, and also foreign furs; at any rate the princess Berta had a valuable mantle or tippet of ermine, which Alcuin calls _murina_[790].

Fur gloves were at that time usual also. The monks, at least, in winter wore gloves of sheep’s skin, which were called _muffulæ_; whereas the summer gloves were named _wanti_[791].

In the Welsh laws of Hywel Dda, who reigned in the tenth century, the skin of an ox, a deer, a fox, a wolf and an otter, are estimated at the same price, that is, eight times as dear as the skin of a sheep or a goat. The skin of a white weazle was eleven times as dear, that of a marten twenty-four times, and that of a beaver one hundred and twenty[792].

In the year 1001 the emperor Otto III. sent an ambassador to Constantinople, whose attendants were clothed in costly furs[793]. Adam of Bremen, who lived in the same century, says, in his description of the countries bordering on Poland and Russia, that from these districts were procured those costly furs which were so eagerly purchased by the luxurious[794]. When Godfrey of Bouillon, in the year 1096, paid a visit to the emperor Alexius at Constantinople, what the latter chiefly admired was the rich and costly dresses of the Europeans bordered with furs[795]. In the beginning of the twelfth century the canons of a cathedral suffered themselves to be corrupted by beautiful furs[796]. The use of them, however, was forbidden to the clergy at one of the councils. According to that of London, in 1127, the abbesses and nuns were to wear those only made of lamb-skins and cat-skins[797]. In the year 1187, when the Christians were beaten near Tiberias, count Raimond having treacherously gone over to the Turks, the latter found among the plunder of the Christian camp a complete assortment of furs[798]. At the end of the twelfth century, Gottfried or Gaufred, prior of Vigeois, complained that no one would any longer wear sheep-skins and fox-skins, which before had been worn by barons and the principal clergy[799].

We however find that princes sometimes endeavoured by the most effective means to restrain this magnificence. When Philip II. of France and Richard I. of England, about the end of the twelfth century, undertook a crusade to the Holy Land, they resolved that neither of them should wear ermine, sable, or other costly furs[800]. It appears that a similar resolution was adopted by St. Louis (Louis IX.) in the following century; for the historians, speaking of his crusade, expressly say that he avoided all magnificence, and wore no costly furs[801]. In the year 1336, in the reign of Edward III., king of England, when foreign articles imported into the kingdom began to be taxed, it was enacted, that no person whose yearly income did not amount to a hundred pounds should wear furs, under the penalty of losing them[802].

In Germany, in 1497, citizens who did not belong to the nobility or equestrian order were forbidden to wear lining of sable or ermine. According to an ordinance of 1530, common citizens, tradesmen, and shopkeepers were to wear no trimmed clothes, nor to use marten or other costly lining, and the rich were to wear lining made only of lamb-skins, or those of the cow, fox, weasel, and the like. Merchants and tradespeople were not to wear marten, sable, or ermine, and at most weasel-skins; and their wives were to wear the fur only of the squirrel. Counts and lords were allowed all kinds of lining, sable and such like expensive kinds excepted. The latter permission was repeated, word for word, in the year 1548.

When one considers how much the use of fur dresses was spread all over Europe, it must excite astonishment that they were not introduced at the court of Byzantium. No traces of them are to be found in any of the Byzantine historians; not even in that work in which the emperor Constantine describes the whole ceremonial of his court, and in which dresses of various kinds are named, as Reiske has already remarked[803]. Furs are nowhere represented on Grecian statues, in paintings, or other works of art; and it will be seen in the passages quoted, that in the magnificence which the European princes displayed in the time of the crusades at the court of Constantinople, nothing attracted so much attention as the different kinds of fur dresses. This seems the more astonishing, as a great trade was carried on at that time between Constantinople and those countries from which these wares were sent to Europe.

Over one of the gates of Milan is an image cut out in stone of the twelfth century, representing an emperor whose mantle is ornamented with small triangular patches of fur. Flamma believed that this carving was intended to represent one of the Greek emperors; but Giulini justly remarks, in opposition to this opinion, that furs never occur in any of the Greek sculpture. Besides, that image was evidently formed to ridicule the emperor, as is proved by the hideous monster seated close to him. But at that time the Milanese certainly had no cause to offend the Greek emperor, with whom they were in alliance; and Giulini has proved, in a very satisfactory manner, that the Milanese erected this image to ridicule the emperor Frederick I., who was their bitterest enemy[804]. On another image at Milan, cut out in stone, of the thirteenth century, which represents the emperor of Germany on his throne, surrounded by the electors, the latter have small mantles, which are ornamented with triangular patches of fur of the same kind[805].

[Since the discovery and settlement of Canada, furs or peltries have mostly been obtained from the northern parts of America, some from the states of Rio de la Plata, a few from Germany, Holland, &c.

The success obtained by the French after their settlement in Canada in 1608, induced the formation of the English Hudson’s Bay Company, which was chartered by Charles II. in 1670, with the exclusive privilege of trading with the Indians in the vast territories adjoining Hudson’s Bay. But their charter never having been confirmed by parliament, hunting in those regions was still considered as open to all British subjects, and many engaged in it. In 1766, private adventurers began to traffic from Michillimakinac, whose success incited others to follow their example; and independent traders gradually spread over every part of the country, until 1787, when these scattered parties were united into one great body, under the name of the “North-west Company.” The rivalry of these associations had the effect of inspiriting and extending the trade, and led to constant and furious disturbances between the two. At length, in 1821, the two concerns united, under the title of the “Hudson’s Bay Fur Company,” with much advantage to the peace of the fur countries, and perhaps to the permanent interests of the trade. The skins collected by this company are all shipped to London, mostly from their factories of York Fort and Moose Fort in Hudson’s Bay; others from Fort Vancouver, on the river Columbia, and from Montreal.

On the part of the United States, the fur trade is chiefly prosecuted by the North American Fur Company, whose principal establishment is at Michillimakinac, where it receives skins from the posts depending on that station and from those on the Mississippi, Missouri and Yellowstone rivers, and the great range of country extending thence to the Rocky Mountains. Of other associations in the United States, the most celebrated are Ashley’s Company from St. Louis, and Captain Bonneville’s, formed at New York in 1831; which last has pushed its enterprises into tracts between the Rocky Mountains and the coasts of Monterrey and Upper California. Indeed the whole of the districts from the Mississippi to the Pacific, and from the Arctic Sea to the Gulf of Mexico, are now traversed in every direction by the hunter. Almost all the American furs which do not belong to the Hudson’s Bay Company find their way to New York, where they are either distributed for home consumption, or exported chiefly to London.

The fur trade is also extensively pursued by the Russians in the north of Asia and the north-west coast of America. Their chief association is the Russian American Company of Moscow; and the principal markets for their furs are the fairs of Kiachta, Novgorod and Leipsic.

London is the principal emporium of the fur trade: the vessels of the Hudson’s Bay Company arrive here about September; the public sales are held in March, and are attended by a great many foreign merchants, whose purchases are chiefly sent to the great fairs of Leipsic, whence they are distributed to various parts of the continent.]

FOOTNOTES

[712] Pausan. x. 38. p. 895.

[713] Sat. xiv. 185.

[714] Varro De Re Rust. lib. i. 1, 6.

[715] Diodor. Siculus, Pausanias, Propertius.

[716] Virg. Æneid. viii. 177, 368; ix. 306; xi. 576. To the same purpose are various passages in the Odyssey.

[717] Eleg. iv, 1. 12.

[718] Lib. iv. 3, 11.

[719] See Ferrarius De Re Vestiar. iv. 2. 2. in Thesaurus Antiquitat. Roman. vi. p. 908. Aristophan. Nubes, 1, 1, 73.

[720] Livius, v. 2. p. 11.--Florus, 1. 12.--Tacit. Annal. 14. 38.--Corn. Nepos, Agesil. cap. 8.--Lipsius De Militia Rom. lib. v. dial. 1, p. 313.

[721] Lib. viii. 55, p. 483. The hair of this animal seems to have been an article of trade, and comprehended under the head of wool, as we find by the Roman code of laws. L. 70. § 9.--De Legat. 3, or Digest. lib. xxxii. leg. 70. 9. Cushions however were stuffed with it. See Waarenkunde, i. p. 271.

[722] For the following information on this subject I am indebted to the friendship of Professor Eichorn:--“Of furs being used as dresses of magnificence I find very faint traces. I shall however quote all the passages where allusion is made to furs.

“In Genesis, chap. xxv. ver. 25, Esau is said to have felt to the touch like a hairy garment, אדרת שער. A fur dress must here be meant; for Rebecca endeavoured to make Jacob like his brother, by binding pieces of goats’ skins around his hands and neck.--Genesis xxvii. ver. 16.

“In Joshua, chap. vii. ver. 21, the true reading is אדות שכער, and signifies a Babylonian mantle, consequently one made of wool, respecting which many passages have been collected by various authors, and particularly Fischer in Prolus. de Vers. Græc. Vet. Test. p. 87. One manuscript, according to Kennicot, has however אדרת שעו, a hairy mantle or fur; but this has arisen either through an error in transcribing, one consonant, נ _Nun_, being omitted; or from the conjecture of some Jewish copyist, who was acquainted with costly furs but not with a Babylonian mantle. If the reading of Kennicot is to be retained, it would, on account of the price, be an important passage, in regard to costly furs.

“Among the Hebrews, the prophets wore fur dresses, if not in general, at any rate very often.

“The mantle of Elijah, 2 Kings, chap. ii. ver. 8, 13, 14, was of fur; because on account of his clothing he was called a hairy man, 2 Kings, chap. i. ver. 8.

“A hairy mantle, as a mark of distinction, is mentioned in the book of Zechariah, chap. xiii. ver. 4.

“In 1 Maccabees, chap. xiii. ver. 37, the high priest Simon obtained from king Demetrius βαίνη, which is certainly a false reading for βαίτα, or βαίτη. The only question is, whether βαίτη, which was merely a shepherd’s dress, consequently made of sheep skins, signified also a dress of state, as there is reason to conjecture from the persons who sent and who received it as a present. See Theocrit. Idyll. iii. 25. et ibi Schol. Furs, as a present, in the hot climate of Bassorah, are mentioned by Niebuhr.”

[723] The best refutation of this supposed Vandalism is to be found in Schlözer’s Essay, in the second edition of F. I. L. Mayers Fragmenten aus Paris. Hamb. 1798, 8vo, ii. p. 353. Nowhere do we find that the works of art were destroyed by the Goths or Vandals; on the contrary, it appears that they had sufficient culture to hold them in just estimation. Genseric carried away works of art from Rome, in the same manner as the Romans had done from Greece; but they were carefully packed up and not destroyed; he did therefore what Bonaparte did in those countries which were unable to withstand the force of his armies. If the epithet of Vandalism is to be applied to modern events, it seems most applicable to those who carried away works of art from countries into which the conquerors promised to introduce the rights of man, liberty, and happiness. The Christian writers, even, and among these St. Augustine, admit that the Goths after their victories were not so cruel and rapacious as the Romans. Orosius, who lived in the beginning of the fifth century, relates, that a Goth of high rank, after the taking of Rome, having found in a house some gold and silver vessels which had been plundered from the church of St. Peter, gave notice to Alaric, and that the latter caused them to be sent back safe to the church. The account given of the arms and accoutrements of these northern tribes proves also that they were acquainted with the arts, and that they employed them to ornament their clothing. The fur dresses therefore may have been very handsome.

[724] Glossarium, p. 1282.

[725] Virgilii Georg. iii. 381.--Ovid. Trist. iii. 10, 19; v. 7, 49.--Ex Ponto, iv. 10, 1.--Justinus, ii. 2, p. 43.--Seneca, epist. 90.--Rutilii Itiner. ii. 49.--Claudian, viii. 466; xxvi. 481.--Ammian. Marcell. xxxi. 2.--Prudentius in Symmachum, ii. 695.--Isidor. Origin. xix. 23.--Sidon. Apollin. epist. i. 2, where he describes Theodoric II. king of the Goths, the son of Theodoric I. and brother of Thorismundus: _pellitorum turba satellitum_. In epist. vii. 9, the kings of the Goths are called _pelliti reges_.

[726] Tacitus De Moribus German. 17.

[727] Variegated furs of this kind sewed together are mentioned by Pollux, vii. 60, p. 729.

[728] Plutarchus in Lycurgo. In like manner, the savages in the South Seas are acquainted with the art of giving more beauty and value to their ornaments made of feathers, shells, and the teeth of their enemies killed in battle.

[729] Lagerbring Svea Rikes Hist. Part 2. p. 88.

[730] At this period the Danes appear to have spent in eating and drinking the treasure they obtained in plundering; they employed their time only in hunting and breeding cattle, and clothed themselves in the skins of their sheep; but Canute endeavoured to introduce among them the Saxon manners and dress. He had invited into his kingdom from Lower Saxony, which at that time was considered the seat of the arts and sciences, and refined manners, a great many workmen and artists, a colony of whom he established in Roeskild, the capital.

[731] Digestor. lib. xxxiv.

[732] De Habitu Muliebri, cap. i. p. 551.

[733] Charact. cap. 5 et 12.

[734] Apophthegm.

[735] See Herodian, ix. 13.

[736] De Institut. Orat. xi. 3, 144.

[737] Lex. 25, De Auro, Argento, Mundo.

[738] See the instances quoted by G. S. Treuer in Anastasis Veteris Germani Germanæque Feminæ. Helmst. 1729, 4to.

[739] Trist. v. 10, 31. For a complete history of their dress the reader must consult the authors quoted in Fabricii Bibliograph. Antiquaria, p. 861; and in Pitisci Lex. Antiq. v. Bracca.

[740] In his Annotations on Catullus, p. 100.

[741] In that learned and ingenious work, Erklärung der Vasengemälde, i. 3, p. 186.

[742] Lib. xxxiv. cap. 14, § 41, p. 667.

[743] Cap. 50, § 3.

[744] Lib. xi. p. 755: ἀνδρόποδα καὶ δέρματα.

[745] Histor. lib. iv. p. 306.

[746] Tacitus, Annal. iv. 72.

[747] Hist. Animal. xviii. 17. The singular word καναυτᾶνες, respecting which a great deal has been said by Pauw in his annotations to Phile de Animal. 48, p. 246, has lately been translated by Böttiger very happily, by the word _kaftane_, a kind of Turkish robe. In the present day these dresses of ceremony are of cotton, with flocks of silk worked into them, and for the most part are whitish, with a few rudely-formed pale yellow flowers: but the word formerly may have signified clothes in general, or fur clothing in particular, and perhaps the silk flocks may have been at first intended to represent fur. That furs at present are employed at Bassorah as presents, is proved by Professor Eichorn.

[748] Vita Agesilai, p. 602. See also Hellenica, lib. iv.

[749] Cyropædia, lib. viii., where he mentions χειρίδας δασείας. The Greeks and the Romans, however, did not wear gloves.

[750] Ammian. Marcell. xxii. 5, p. 232.

[751] Lib. v. 41.

[752] Annal. lib. xiii. In Athenæus, Deipnos. v. p. 197, Callixenus describes Persian counterpanes with figures representing animals, but I do not know whether I ought not, with Valois, to consider them as painted leather, or rather worked tapestry.

[753] Digest. lib. xxxix. tit. 4, 16, 7, or L. ult. § 7, de publicanis. In Gronovii Geographia Antiqua, p. 261, it is said that a great trade was carried on in Cappadocia with Babylonian leather. The _vestes leporinæ_ appear to have been made of the hair of the Angora rabbits.

[754] L. 7, C. de excus. mun. or Cod. lib. 10, tit. 47, 7.

[755] Chardin, iv. p. 245.

[756] De Rebus Geticis, cap. 3, p. 612.

[757] History of the Germans, vol. ii.

[758] Cap. 5, p. 616.

[759] Langebek Scriptores Rerum Danicarum, fol. ii. p. 111.

[760] Torfæi Hist. Norveg. P. 2, p. 34. Compare Schlözer’s Nordische Geschichte in Algem. Welthistor. vol. xxxi. pp. 445, 458.--Having heard from M. Schlözer that the first certain traces of the Russian fur trade were to be found in the Russian Chronicles, works never yet used, I requested him, as the only person in Germany who could draw from these sources, to transmit to me what he had remarked on that subject. I am indebted to him, therefore, for the following valuable information, the result of a laborious comparison of various manuscript chronicles, for which he will no doubt receive the reader’s thanks.

“The following passages are taken from the ten Russian Chronicles, the greater part of them still in manuscript, as a proof that from the ninth century tribute in furs was demanded from the people in Russia by their conquerors.

I. “In the year 859, the Waringians, who came by sea, had tribute from the Tschudi, the Slavi, the Meri, and the Kriwitsches, a squirrel per man. The Chazares (in the Crimea) had tribute from the Poles (the inhabitants of the Ukrain), the Severians and the Wæitsches, a squirrel for each fireplace or hearth.

“The squirrel _Sciurus vulgaris_ had in the old and new Russian language the five following names:--1st. ‘Bēla.’ This primitive word has been lost in the new Russian language, but is still preserved in the Chronicles, and in the adjectives ‘bēlij’ and ‘bēliczij mēch, Grauwerk’ (squirrel-skins). ‘Bēl’ in all the Sclavonic dialects signifies white. Can any connexion be discovered between the squirrel and a white colour? 2nd. ‘Bēlka,’ the diminutive of the former, is at present generally current. 3rd. ‘Wēkscha,’ from which is derived, 4th. ‘Wēkschitza,’ the diminutive. 5th. ‘Weweritza’ is old, but still exists in the Polish.

“The variations of these words which occur in manuscripts are abundant, and some of them exceedingly laughable. One transcriber has ‘bēla;’ most of the rest add ‘wēkscha,’ ‘wēkschitza’ or ‘weweritza,’ as if ‘bēla’ were the adjective white. Two manuscripts say expressly, ‘bēla,’ that is ‘wēkscha.’ In one, however, from ‘bēla weweritza’ has been made ‘bēla ‘dewitza,’ a fair or beautiful maid.

II. “In the year 883 Oleg went against the Drewians and Severians, whom he obliged to pay tribute, each a black marten.

“‘Po czernē kunē’ stands in all the manuscripts; one only has the diminutive ‘kunitzē.’ Another bad manuscript, which has ‘konē,’ a black horse, is not worthy of any remark.

III. “In 969 Svātoslav spoke to his mother and boyars: ‘I am not fond of Kief; I will reside in Pereyaslawetz on the Danube. There I shall be in the middle of my lands, to which every thing good in my territories flows: from the Greeks gold and _pavoloki_ (silk-stuffs?), and wine and fruit of every kind; from the Tscheches (Bohemians) and Hungarians silver and horses; from Russia _skora_, wax, honey, and servants.’ _Skora_, _skura_, furs (according to the Great Lexicon of the Russian Academy), from which is derived _skornak_, similar furs prepared. That coarse skins or furs (in Russian _schurka_), such as the _terga boum_, imposed by the Romans on the Frieslanders, are not here meant, is proved by a passage in the Chronicle of Nicon, vol. ii. p. 15, where it is related of a savage people, who lived far to the north on the Ural, that they gave _skora_ for a knife and a hatchet.

“That marten-skins, as well as pieces of them (_mortki_) and of squirrel-skins, were used as money in Novogorod, till the year 1411, is well-known from Saml. Russ. Geschichte, vol. v. p. 430.”

[761] Du Cange Glossarium.

[762] De Animantibus Subter. p. 490.

[763] Varro De Ling. Lat. lib. vi. p. 51.

[764] Seneca, epist. 90.

[765] Pallas, Novæ Species Quadr. e Glirium ord. 1778, p. 120.

[766] Lib. viii. 37.

[767] Pallas, p. 142. I shall here take occasion to remark, that the use of this animal’s skin, as well as the name, occurs in the eleventh century, in Bernardus Sylvester.

[768] Lib. ii. ep. 2.

[769] See a dissertation De l’Origine des Couleurs et des Métaux dans les Armoiries, added by Du Cange to his edition of Joinville. Paris, 1668, fol. p. 127. See also the article _Hermine_, in his Glossary to Geoffroy de Ville-Hardouin’s Conqueste de Constantinople; or the same in Diction. Etymolog.

[770] Mullers Samlung Russischer Geschichte, vi. p. 491. Fischers Sibirische Geschichte. St. Petersb. 1768, 8vo, p. 290.

[771] Du Cange, in his observations on Joinville, p. 137, thinks that the _zebelinæ_ or _sabelinæ pelles_ came from Zibel or Zibelet, a maritime town in Palestine, formerly called _Biblium_, because the skins were sent from it to Europe. This author meant _Byblus_, at present _Gibelet_ or _Gibeletto_; but this derivation appears to me highly improbable.

[772] Epigram. x. 37, 18.

[773] Trier’s Wapen-Kunst, p. 62.--Gatterers Heraldik. p. 41.

[774] _Grauwerk veh_ or _feh_ means properly a kind of fur, composed of that of the Siberian squirrel and the marten joined together.--TRANS.

[775] Antiquit. Ital. Medii Ævi, ii. p. 413.

[776] See the passages quoted by Du Cange, and what Gesner has said in Histor. Animal. under the head _Cuniculus_.

[777] Rapin’s England.

[778] See this article in Du Cange and Hoffmann’s Lexicon.

[779] Marco Polo.

[780] Lib. ii. epist. 2.

[781] Epig. 92: de birro castoreo.

[782] De dignitate sacerdotali, cap. 5.

[783] Lib. xvii. cap. 28. § 47; xxxii. cap. 9 and 10.

[784] Lib. xix. cap. 27, p. 474.

[785] Lib. xix. cap. 22.

[786] Constantin. de Ceremoniis Aulæ Byzantinæ, i. p. 254: σκαραμάγγων καστώριον. The editor, Reiske, thinks that it may have been a pelisse, because Herodotus, iv. 109, speaks of the beaver’s skin being used for clothing. But how different must the old Sarmatian manners have been from the Byzantine!

[787] Epist. 42.

[788] Eginhartus, Vita Caroli Magni, cap. 23.

[789] This anecdote is related by the monk of St. Gall, whose name is supposed to be Notker, in his book De Gestis Caroli Magni, ii. 27, printed in Bouquet, Historiens de la Gaule, v. p. 152. Whether Notker was the author of this chronicle or not, there can be no doubt that it was written after the year 883 and before 887, as has been proved by Basnage. _Pavontalis vestis_, a term used in this passage, does not always signify cloth wove or painted so as to resemble the colours of the peacock; the skin of the peacock was used for ornament; the people of all nations indeed decorated themselves with feathers till they became acquainted with dyeing. The art of those who prepared feathers was banished by that of the dyers.

[790] Carmen De Carolo Magno, in Op. ii. p. 453, v. 225.

[791] At the council of Aix-la-Chapelle in 817, where the dress of the monks was defined, it was ordered, “abbas provideat, unusquisque monachorum habeat ... _wantos_ in æstate, _muffulas_ in hieme vervecinas.” See Sirmond’s Concil. Antiq. Galliæ, Paris, 1629, fol. i. p. 442. _Wantus_ is still retained in the Netherlandish dialect, where _want_ signifies a glove without fingers, having only a place for the thumb; perhaps it is the same word as _want_, _wand_, or _gewand_, which formerly denoted every kind of woollen cloth. Hence is derived the French word _gand_; for _gwantus_ and _gantus_ were formerly used instead of _wantus_. It is equally certain that _muffula_ is of German extraction; _mouw_ at present in Dutch signifies a sleeve. But at what time that covering came into use into which both hands are thrust at present to secure them from the frost, and which according to the size now fashionable covers the whole body and is called a _muff_, I am not able to determine.

[792] Leges Wallicæ, ed. Wottoni. Londini, 1730, fol. p. 261.

[793] Landulphus, lib. ii. c. 18, in Murat. Rer. Ital. Script., tom. iv.

[794] Adam Bremensis in Lindenbrogii Script. Rer. Germ., p. 67.

[795] Albertus Aquensis, in Gesta Dei per Francos, i. p. 203.

[796] Ivo Carn. Epistolæ 104.

[797] Canon 12.

[798] Albertus Aquensis, in Gesta Dei per Francos, i. p. 321.

[799] In Labbei Biblioth. Nova, tom. ii.

[800] Wilhelmus Neubrigensis, lib. iii. cap. 22.

[801] Wilhelmus de Nangis, p. 346. Gottfr. de Bello Loco, cap. 8. Joinville Hist. de St. Louis, p. 118.

[802] Barrington’s Obs. on the more Ancient Statutes, 4to, p. 216.

[803] Constantini lib. de Ceremoniis Aulæ Byzantinæ, 1754.

[804] Giulini, Mem. della Città di Milano, vi. p. 407.

[805] Ib. viii. p. 443.

STEEL.

Steel is a carburet of iron, and possesses some remarkable properties, by which it is distinguished from common iron. It is of such a superior degree of hardness, that it is capable of filing the latter; it strikes fire with siliceous stones, and scratches the hardest glass; it is heavier, emits a stronger sound, exhibits on fracture a finer grain, assumes a brighter white lustre when polished, is susceptible of greater elasticity; becomes more slowly magnetic, but retains that power longer; does not so easily acquire rust; in the fire it assumes various strong tints, and when heated is speedily cooled in cold water, but is then harder, more brittle and less pliable. In consequence of these qualities it is fit for many uses to which common iron either cannot be applied, or is less proper.

It is certain that the invention of steel is of very great antiquity. In the Old Testament, however, the mention of it is very doubtful, according to Professor Tychsen, whose remarks on this subject I subjoin in a note below[806]; but it appears that it was used as early as the time of Homer, and that the Greeks gave to it different names, one of the most common of which was _stomoma_, though it seems certain that this word did not so much denote steel itself as the steeled part of an instrument, or the operation of steeling. The name _chalybs_ was given to steel from the Chalybes, a people on the southern shore of the Pontus Euxinus, between Colchis and Paphlagonia, who had considerable mines, and in particular iron and steel works: though others, on the contrary, derive the name of the people from the principal article of their commerce. This derivation appears the more probable, as Justin says that a river of Spain, on which there were steel works, was named _Chalybs_, but at a much later period. Some also have ascribed to the Chalybes the invention of iron, which however is much older.

But it seems to be less known that _adamas_ also at first denoted steel. This is expressly said by Hesychius, and many epithets derived from _adamas_ are applied to articles made of steel or of iron. Among these may be mentioned the helmet of Hercules, in Hesiod[807], and the so-called adamantine chains, gates, and bars of the poets, which in dictionaries are always explained as consisting of precious stones.

It was not till a late period that this word was applied to the most costly of all the precious stones. In this sense it occurs neither in Homer, Hesiod, Herodotus, Orpheus, nor Dioscorides, though the first of these writers often describes various kinds of valuable ornaments. Goguet and others thence conclude that the diamond was not then known. At present I cannot enter into the history of this stone; but I must own, that I consider the knowledge of it to be older, and suspect that it was first introduced under another name, and is mentioned by Orpheus and some others under that of jasper (jaspis). This poet compares his jaspis to rock crystal, and says that it kindles fire in the same manner. That he knew how to use rock crystal as a burning-glass, he expressly tells us himself; but he certainly could not procure a diamond of such a size as to be able to burn with it. From its vitreous nature however he conjectured, and very properly, that it might be employed for that purpose. He calls the jaspis transparent, compares it to glass, and says that it had that sky colour which at present is named _color hyalinus_. This is probably the reason why Dioscorides and others call some kinds of jasper transparent and sky-coloured. The jaspis in the Revelation of St. John[808], described as a costly transparent crystalline kind of stone, was perhaps our diamond, which afterwards was everywhere distinguished by that name.

The Romans borrowed from the Greeks the word _chalybs_; and in consequence of a passage in Pliny[809], many believe that they gave also to steel the name of _acies_, from which the Italians made their _acciajo_, and the French their _acier_. The word _acies_, however, denoted properly the steeled or cutting part only of an instrument. From this, in later times, was formed _aciarium_, for the steel which gave the instrument its sharpness, and also _aciare_ to steel[810].

At present there are two methods of making steel; the first of which is by fusion either from iron-stone or raw iron, and the second by cementation. I have never found in the works of the ancients any traces of steel prepared by cementation; nor am I acquainted with the antiquity of that process, though the ancients, without knowing it, employed it for brass. Spielman says[811], that Pliny in one part calls it _tostio_; but this word occurs neither in Pliny nor in any ancient writer. It is however possible that the word _torrere_ may somewhere signify cementation, but I have not yet met with an instance of it.

The preparation however by fusion, as practised by the Chalybes, has been twice described by Aristotle; but as I have already given in another work[812] everything I was able to collect towards an explanation of these passages, I shall not here repeat it. I shall only remark, that the steel of the ancients, in consequence of not being cemented, suffered itself to be hammered, and was not nearly so brittle as the hardest with which we are acquainted at present.

On the other hand, the singular method of preparing steel employed by the Celtiberians, in Spain, deserves to be here described. According to the account of Diodorus[813] and Plutarch[814], the iron was buried in the earth, and left in that situation till the greater part of it was converted into rust. What remained, without being oxydized, was afterwards forged and made into weapons, and particularly swords, with which they could cut asunder bones, shields, and helmets. However improbable this may appear, it is nevertheless the process still used in Japan; and Swedenborg has introduced it among the different methods of making steel[815].

The art of hardening steel by immersing it suddenly, when red-hot, in cold water, is very old[816]. Homer says, that when Ulysses bored out the eye of Polyphemus with a burning stake, it hissed in the same manner as water when the smith immerses in it a piece of red-hot iron, in order to harden it[817]. Sophocles uses the comparison of being hardened like immersed iron[818]; and Salmasius[819] quotes a work of an old Greek chemist, who treats on the method of hardening iron in India. It is also a very ancient opinion, that the hardening depends chiefly on the nature of the water. Many rivers and wells were therefore in great reputation, so that steel works were often erected near them, though at a considerable distance from the mines. Instances of this may be found in Pliny[820] and in Justin[821]. The more delicate articles of iron were not quenched in water, but in oil.

An opinion, it is well known, long prevailed, that there were various fluids and mixtures which communicate to steel different degrees of hardness, and every artist thought he knew a peculiar hardening kind of water, the preparation of which he kept a secret. This notion is by some still maintained[822]; because there are often found stones cut by the ancients, which the moderns, on account of their hardness, as is believed, have seldom ventured to touch. Of this kind is the hardest porphyry. There are people who still endeavour to find out that hardening kind of water, in which the ancients prepared their tools for cutting such stones. According to Vasari[823], that water was actually discovered by the archduke Cosmo, in the year 1555. Among a large collection of stones he had a block of porphyry, from which he wished a bason to be made for a well, but was told by the most experienced artists that it was impossible. On this, says Vasari, in order to render the work possible, he prepared from certain herbs, which he does not name, a water wherein the red-hot tools were quenched, and by these means so hardened, that they were capable of cutting porphyry. With tools tempered in this manner the artist Francesco del Tadda not only made the required bason, but various other curious articles[824].

Winkelman, therefore, does injustice to Vasari when he says, “Vasari, in pretending that Cosmo archduke of Tuscany discovered a water for making porphyry soft, betrays childish credulity.” On the contrary, he very properly asserts that there is no water of such a quality as to soften porphyry; though Porta and many old writers imagined that they were acquainted with one capable of producing on that stone, which they considered as a species of marble, the same effects as an acid does on the latter. But Vasari says nothing of the kind.

After Tadda’s death, the art of cutting porphyry came to Raphael Curradi, who communicated to Dominico Corsi this secret, which was afterwards employed by Cosimo Silvestrini[825]. I, however, agree in opinion with Winkelman and Fiorillo, our learned connoisseur in the arts, that the method of working porphyry was known in every age, even in the most barbarous, though artists, no doubt, preferred working on other stones which were less brittle and hard. We know however from the latest researches, that all the kinds of hardening water hitherto invented are in nothing superior to common water; and that in hardening more depends on the nature of the steel, or rather on the degree of heat, than on the water; although it is true that the workman does right when he adds to the water a thin cake of grease, or pours over it hot oil, through which the steel must necessarily pass before it enters the water, for by these means it is prevented from acquiring cracks and flaws.

The invention of converting bar iron into steel by dipping it into other fused iron, and suffering it to remain there several hours, is commonly ascribed to Reaumur[826]. But this process is mentioned by Agricola, Imperati and others, as a thing well-known and practised in their time.

Pliny, Daimachus[827] and other ancient writers mention various countries and places which, in their time, produced excellent steel. Among the dearest kinds were the _ferrum Indicum_ and _Sericum_. The former appears to be the _ferrum candidum_, a hundred talents of which were given as a present to Alexander in India[828]. Is it not probable that this was the excellent kind of steel still common in that country, and known under the name of _wootz_, some pieces of which were sent from Bombay in the year 1795 to the Royal Society of London? Its silver-coloured appearance when polished may have, perhaps, given occasion to the epithet of _candidum_. The method of preparing it is still unknown, but it is supposed to be a kind of fused steel[829]. This however is a mere conjecture, unsupported by any proofs[830]. At what time was damasked steel obtained from the Levant?

[Three kinds of steel are now principally manufactured; bar or blistered steel, shear steel and cast steel.

The bar or blistered steel is made by the process of cementation: this consists in putting bars of the purest malleable iron alternately with layers of charcoal or soot into a proper furnace; the air being carefully excluded and the whole kept at a red heat for several days. By this process the carbon combines with the iron, altering its texture from fibrous to granular or crystalline, and rendering the surface blistered. The action of the carbon occasions fissures and cavities in the substance of the bars, rendering them unfit for tool-making, until they are condensed and rendered uniform by the operation of _tilting_, i. e. compression by a powerful hammer worked by machinery.

Shear steel is made by breaking up bars of blistered steel into lengths of about 18 inches, and binding four or six of them together with a steel rod, and then heating them to a full welding heat, the surface being covered with fine clay or sand to prevent oxidation. They are then drawn out into a bar, hammered, tilted and rolled. In this state it is susceptible of a much finer polish, and is also more tenacious and malleable, and fit for making strong springs, knives, &c.

Cast steel, which was first made by Mr. Huntsman at Attercliff, Sheffield, in 1770, is made by melting blistered steel, casting it into ingots and rolling it into bars. In this condition its texture is much more uniform, closer and finer grained. The different degrees of hardness required for steel are given by the process called tempering, which is effected by heating the steel up to a certain temperature, and then quenching it suddenly in cold water. Its hardness and brittleness are thus much increased, but it may be again softened by exposure to heat simply.]

FOOTNOTES

[806] In regard to the hardening of iron and the quenching of it in water, nothing, as far as I know, occurs in the Hebrew text of the Scriptures. The passages where it seems to be mentioned are, Isaiah, chap. xliv. ver. 12. “The smith bends the iron, works it in a fire of coals, and forms it with the hammer; he labours on it with a strong arm,” &c. according to the translation of Michaelis. It may indeed be translated otherwise, but it certainly alludes to the formation of an image of metal. The words, chap. liv. ver. 16, are still more general.

Iron, _barzel_, often occurs, and in some passages indeed steel may be understood under this name; for example, in Ezekiel, chap. xxvii. ver. 19, _ferrum fabrefactum_, or, according to Michaelis and others, sabre blades from Usal (Sanaa in Yemen). A pretty clear indication of steel is given in Jeremiah, chap. xv. ver. 12: “Iron from the north,” which is described there as the hardest. To the north of Judæa was situated Chalybia, the ancient country of steel. It appears that the Hebrews had no particular name for steel, which they perhaps comprehended under the term _barzel_, or distinguished it only by the epithet Northern, especially as the later Jews have for it no other name than אסטמא, _istoma_, which however is nothing else than the Greek στόμωμα, and signifies rather steeling or hardening.

_Chalamisch_ is certainly a hard kind of stone; granite or porphyry, according to Michaelis, who treats expressly of it in Supplem. ad Lex. Hebr. N. 740.

[807] Scutum Herculis, x. 137.

[808] Chap. xxi. ver. 11, 18, 19.

[809] Lib. xxxiv. sect. 41. p. 666. “Stricturæ vocantur hæ omnes, quod non in aliis metallis a stringenda acie vocabulo imposito. Et fornacum maxima differentia est; nucleus quidem ferri excoquitur in his ad indurandam aciem; aliquæ modo ad densandas incudes, malleorumve rostra.” According to my opinion, _stricturæ_ was the name given to pieces of steel completely manufactured and brought to that state which rendered them fit for commerce. At present steel comes from Biscay in cakes, from other places in bars, and both these formerly were called _stricturæ_, because they were employed chiefly for giving sharpness to instruments or tools, that is, for steeling them. In speaking of other metals, Pliny says that the finished productions at the works were not called _stricturæ_ (this was the case, for example, with copper), though sharpness could be given to instruments with other metals also. The words of Pliny last quoted are read different ways, and still remain obscure. I conjecture that he meant to say that some steel works produced things which were entirely of steel, and that others were employed only in steeling. I shall here remark that the _stricturæ ferri_ remind us of the _strigiles auri_: such was the name given to native pieces of gold, which without being smelted were used in commerce.--Plin. xxxiii. 3. p. 616.

[810] See Vossii Etymol. and Martinii Lex. Philolog.

[811] Institut. Chimiæ, p. 252. He refers to lib. xxxiii. cap. 4.

[812] In my observations on Aristot. Auscult. Mirab. cap. 49.

[813] Diod. lib. v. cap. 33.

[814] Plut. de Garrul.

[815] De Ferro, i. p. 194. See also Watson’s Chem. Essays, i. p. 220. Of the iron works in Japan I know nothing further than what has been said by Thunberg in his Travels. That country possesses very little of this metal: but the sabres made there are incomparable; without hurting the edge one can easily cut through a nail with them; and, as the Japanese say, cleave asunder a man at one blow. These sabres are often sold for fifty, seventy, and even a hundred dollars.

[816] Lord Bacon seems not to have been of this opinion; see his Silva Silvarum, cent. i. § 86. But this method of hardening was usual in the eleventh or twelfth century; for it is described by Theophilus Presbyter, lib. iii. cap. 19.

[817] Odyss. ix. 391.

[818] Ajax, 720.

[819] Exercitat. Plin. p. 763.

[820] Lib. xxxiv. 14, p. 666.

[821] Lib. xliv. p. 620.

[822] [There can be no question that the hardening or tempering effect produced by the sudden immersion of heated steel in fluids has no relation to the quality of the fluid, save as regards its conducting power of heat. The more suddenly the heat is abstracted from the metal, the greater is the amount of hardness and brittleness. Mercury has been found superior to any other fluid for this purpose, undoubtedly because it is so good a conductor of heat.]

[823] Le Vite de Pittori. Bologna, 1681, 4to, i. p. 11.

[824] Some account of this artist is given in J. C. Bulengeri de Pictura, lib. ii. cap. 7, in Gronovii Thesaurus Antiq. Græc. ix. p. 875. On the other hand, Sturm says, in that part of the Ritterplatzes which relates to architecture, p. 18: “An archduke at Florence discovered again the art of working porphyry, but suffered it to die with him in the year 1556.”

[825] Florillo Gesch. der Zeichnenden Künste, 8vo, i. p. 461.

[826] Art de convertir le Fer en Acier, p. 245.

[827] Stephanus de Urbibus, under the word Λακεδαίμων, p. 413.

[828] Clemens Alexandr. in Pædagog. ii. p. 161, edit. Cologne, 1688, fol. says, speaking of luxury, “One can cut meat without having Indian iron.”

[829] Philos. Transact. 1795, ii. p. 322.