Chapter XX: Part 20

[965] In the Cumberland dialect, _killow_ or _collow_, as well as _wad_, means black. Therefore when the manganese earth, which is found chiefly at Elton not far from Winster, and when burnt is employed as an oil-colour, but particularly for daubing over ships, is called _black wad_, that expression signifies as much as _black black_. See Pennant’s Tour in Scotland, i. p. 42. Gentleman’s Magazine, 1747, p. 583.

[966] Pinax Rerum Natural. London, 1667, 8vo, p. 218.

[967] Natural Hist. of Westm. and Cumberland, 1709, 8vo, p. 74. See also Gent.’s Mag. xxi. 1751, p. 51, where there is a map of this remarkable district.

[968] Borghini, il Riposo. Artists used sometimes also silver pencils. Baldinucci’s Vocab. dell’ arte del Disegno: Stile.

[969] These sonnets are the 57th and 58th. Of Simon and his drawings an account may be found in Fiorillo Gesch. der zeichnenden Künste, Gött. 1798, 8vo, i. p. 269.

[970] De’ veri precetti della pittura. Ravenna, 1587, 4to, p. 53.

[971] In his observations on Vasari, iii. p. 310.

SAL-AMMONIAC.

It is not very probable that Dioscorides, Pliny, and others who lived nearly about the same time, were acquainted with sal-ammoniac, or mentioned it in their works; for no part of mineralogy was then so defective as that which is the most important, and which treats of salts. The art of lixiviating earths and causing saline solutions to crystallize was then so little known, that, instead of green vitriol, vitriolic minerals, however impure, were employed in making ink, dye-liquors, and other things. Places for boiling vitriol were not then established, and therefore Pliny beheld with wonder blue vitriol, which in his time was made only in Spain, as a thing singular in its kind, or which had not its like. On this account those salts only were known which occur in a native state, or which crystallize as it were of themselves, without any artificial preparation, as is the case with bay salt. But that neutral salt, formed of muriatic acid and ammonia, occurs very seldom in a native state, and almost exclusively among the productions of volcanoes. I do not, however, suppose that this volcanic sal-ammoniac was the first known, but that it was first considered to be sal-ammoniac after that salt had been long obtained by another method, and long used.

But even if it should be believed that our sal-ammoniac was known to the ancients, how are we to discover it with certainty in their writings? This salt has little or nothing by which these writers could characterize it. Neither its external form nor taste is so striking that it could be described by them with sufficient precision. The use of it also could not at that time be so important and necessary, as to enable us to determine whether they were acquainted with it; whereas, on the other hand, green vitriol and alum can easily be distinguished among the materials for dyeing.

Nay, if this salt had been then made, as it is made at present in Egypt, and if any allusion to it were found, one might readily conjecture that sal-ammoniac were really meant. But even though it must be admitted that traces of sublimation being employed occur in the writings of Dioscorides and others, who lived nearly at the same period, we are not authorized to suppose that the knowledge of it was sufficient for the preparation of this salt.

Besides, there are two properties with which the ancients might have accidentally become acquainted, and which in that case would have been sufficient to make known or define to us this salt. In the first place, by an accidental mixture of quicklime, the strong smell or unsupportable vapour diffused by the volatile alkali separated from the acid might have been observed. In the second place, it is very possible that the complete volatilization of this salt on burning coals may have been remarked; for it had been long known that common salt decrepitates in the fire. This excited wonder, and in examining other salts people were accustomed to observe whether they possessed that property also. Had any one, with this view, thrown a bit of sal-ammoniac on a burning coal, he must have seen with astonishment that instead of decrepitating it became entirely volatilized. For this experiment, however, very pure sal-ammoniac would have been necessary. Had a little common salt been mixed with it, decrepitation would not have been altogether prevented; and if the sal-ammoniac had been rendered impure by earthy particles, as is almost always the case with the volcanic, some earth at least would have remained behind on the coals.

The name _sal-ammoniacus_ is indeed old; but as those who, in consequence of the name, considered the _alumen_ of the ancients to be our alum, and their _nitrum_ to be our saltpetre, were in an error, we should be equally so were we to consider their sal-ammoniac to be the same as ours. Our forefathers believed that the ancient writers were acquainted with all minerals, as well as with all plants; and when they discovered a new one, they searched in old books till they found a name which would suit it, or which at any rate had not been given to another. Our sal-ammoniac, in all probability, acquired in the same manner its name, which is not often to be found in the writings of the ancients[972].

When everything they have said of it is collected and impartially examined, no proofs will be found that under that name they understood our sal-ammoniac. On the contrary, one will soon be convinced that _sal-ammoniacus_ was nothing else than impure marine salt. As the ancients were not acquainted with the art of separating salts, of refining and crystallising them, they gave to each variety or kind in the least different, which was distinguished either by the intermixture of some foreign substance or by an accidental formation, a particular name; and, considering the wants of that period, this method was not so bad. For among the impure saline substances, there were always some which were found to be fitter than others for certain purposes. On this account they distinguished with so much care _misy_, _sory_, _chalcitis_ and _melanteria_, instead of which we use a substance contained in all these minerals, that is to say, green vitriol. Our apothecary shops however have at present the lixivious salt under the name of various plants, from which it is extracted, with different degrees of purity.

When this is known, it will excite no wonder that the _sal-ammoniacus_ of the ancients was nothing else than our common salt. Dioscorides and Pliny speak of it expressly as a kind of this salt; and Columella[973], in a prescription for an eye-salve, recommends rock-salt, either Spanish, Ammoniacal, or Cappadocian. Pliny says[974] that _sal-ammoniacus_ was found in the dry sandy deserts of Africa, as far as the oracle of Ammon. It is stated, both by him and Dioscorides[975], that this salt can be split or broken into smooth pieces; and the former adds, that the best are white and transparent; that it however has an unpleasant taste, but can be used in medicine. In like manner later physicians, when they wish to prescribe common salt, recommend in particular the ammoniac. Thus Aetius, who lived in the fifth century, remarks, that when fossil, or as we say at present native salt, is employed, ammoniac or Cappadocian ought to be chosen.

From what is said by Pliny, it may with certainty be concluded that this salt was dug up from pits or mines in Africa; for he relates, that it appeared wonderful that a piece of it, which in the pit was very light, became, on exposure to the open air, much heavier. Without repeating the explanation which he gives of this phænomenon, I shall only remark, that many kinds of rock-salt, taken from the mines of Wieliczka, experience the same change in the air; so that blocks which a labourer can easily carry in the mine, can scarcely be lifted by him after they have been some time exposed to the air. The cause here is undoubtedly the same as that which makes many kinds of artificial salt to become moist and to acquire more weight. In this case it is owing to some impurity, such as muriate of lime, which is called _sal-ammoniacus fixus_[976], and which attracts from the atmosphere so much moisture, that it deliquesces in it to the so-called oil of lime.

Synesius, who was born in Egypt in the fifth century, in the Pentapolitan town Cyrene, and who resided as bishop in Ptolemais, the capital of the district, says, in a letter wherein he describes many rarities of his native country, that what was called _sal-ammoniacus_[977], both according to its appearance and taste, was a salt of a good quality, fit for use; that it lay under a soft kind of stone which covered it like a crust, and that it could be easily dug up when this stone was removed.

Herodotus, Strabo, Arrian, and others, speak of rock-salt which was dug up in Ammonia, and carried thence as an article of merchandise. The first mentions a hill of salt; and we are told by the last, that native salt was brought to Egypt as a present to the king and others, from the neighbourhood of the oracle of Ammon, by the priests of that place, in boxes made of palms worked together. Many pieces were three inches in length; and because this substance was purer than bay salt, and as clear as crystal, it was particularly employed in sacrifices. This salt is certainly that which, under the name of _sal-ammoniacus_, was sent from Egypt to the king of Persia, like the water of the Nile, as is related by Athenæus from an historian long since lost[978].

It is also certain that the old Arabian physicians, Avicenna and Serapion, who both lived in the eleventh century, under the name _sal-ammoniacus_ understood nothing else than rock-salt. The former says that it ought to split easily, and to be clear and transparent like crystal; and the latter states that this salt is cut from the solid rock, and that it is sometimes clear as crystal, sometimes reddish, sometimes blackish, sometimes of another colour, sometimes hard, and sometimes friable, or, as the translator expresses it, pulverulent. All these colours and properties are not uncommon in rock-salt, and always proceed, no doubt, from an admixture of ferruginous earth. Serapion says that this salt was obtained from Corasini. I shall leave it to others to determine where this country was situated. He often names it, and says that _mala granata_ and _bezaar_ were obtained from it. But who knows how the name was written in the original? And the Arabian author perhaps did not mention the place where the salt was dug up, but that from which, in his time, it was procured[979].

In regard to the purpose to which the ancients applied their _sal-ammoniacus_, it appears that it required only common salt and not sal-ammoniac. It is oftenest mentioned by the physicians, because it was the purest table salt that could then be procured. On that account it has been praised by Scribonius Largus, who lived in the first century, and by Aetius who lived in the fifth, as well as by Avicenna, Serapion, and others. I have however not yet met with it in the writings of Hippocrates or Galen. In the works of the Greek agriculturists it occurs in a recipe for the preparation of a cement employed to close up wine vessels[980]. According to a recipe of Apicius, in his book on cookery, _sal-ammoniacus_ was to be roasted. By these means this rock-salt lost its water of crystallization and became stronger. On this account, in Transylvania, Siberia, and other countries, before it is brought to the table it is pounded and roasted. Of our sal-ammoniac, however, were it roasted, very little would remain. But whether the _ammonium_ which Palladius recommends for a cement[981] be that salt, I will not pretend to determine. On the other hand, I have no hesitation to contradict the old commentator on Ovid, who, in a passage where the poet recommends _sal-ammoniacus_ in making a cosmetic water, understands the resin or gum of that name. Ovid however had no intention that young women should lacker themselves.

For the reasons therefore already mentioned, I am convinced that the _sal-ammoniacus_ of the ancients was rock-salt, and not our _sal-ammoniac_. The oldest commentators also on these writers had no idea of any other than rock-salt; and it was not till a later period, when our sal-ammoniac was introduced into commerce, and acquired that name, that the most learned commentators began expressly to remark, that the new sal-ammoniac, notwithstanding its appellation, was different from the _sal-ammoniacus_ of the ancients. As this could not then be obtained, people used the former, which they considered only as an artificial substitute for the latter, though it was incapable of supplying its place. But in more modern times, when our sal-ammoniac became common, and physicians and mineralogists no longer took the trouble to read the works of the ancients, some of them, if not the greater part, spoke in such a manner as if our sal-ammoniac had been the _sal-ammoniacus_ of the ancients; and it was then generally believed that it had been, at any rate, known and used since the time of Dioscorides and Pliny.

No one has maintained this with greater confidence and zeal than F. I. W. Schröder[982], whose judgement however was perverted by alchemistic conceits. According to his assertion, the Egyptians practised from the earliest periods the art of making sal-ammoniac, but they kept it a secret; and he obscurely hints at the purpose for which these great chemists used so much salt. He refers, on this occasion, to what Pliny says of _flos salis_[983], in which he thinks he can find the martial sal-ammoniac[984] flowers of our chemists, or the so-called _flores salis ammoniaci martiales_. Those who cannot make this discovery he declares to be ignorant and blind. This decision, however, when the character of the person who gives it is considered, cannot dissipate a single doubt. It is certain that what Dioscorides and Pliny call _flos salis_ has never yet been defined. It was moist, oily, and saline; and in the vessels, in which it was sent from Egypt, was grey at the top, saffron-coloured at the bottom, and emitted a bad smell. The most ingenious conjecture was that of Cordus[985], who thought that it might be _sperma ceti_; but though I should prefer this opinion to that of Schröder, I must confess that, on the grounds adduced by Matthioli and Conrad Gesner, it has too much against it to be admitted as truth.

The first distinct traces of our sal-ammoniac which I have yet met with are to be found in the works of the Arabians[986]. In a writing of Geber, there is a prescription how to purify sal-ammoniac by sublimation, and in another a receipt for making it; so that there can be no doubt that the author was acquainted with our salt. But this furnishes very little towards the history of it. The period when that celebrated chemist lived is uncertain. If, as Leo says[987], he flourished a hundred years after Mahomet, that is to say in the eighth century, his works must have been interpolated with many additions, which criticism has not yet been able to separate. Many of them cannot be of great antiquity; and the uncertainty is increased by some of the editions differing from each other in important passages. Whole sections, which some have, are wanting in others; and the titles and order of the books and sections are different almost in each. When the same circumstances are found in several editions, it is observed that they essentially differ. What, therefore, is now found in the writings of Geber, as they are called, was certainly not all known in the eighth century.

The same uncertainty prevails in regard to the chemical works of Avicenna, who lived in the beginning of the eleventh century, and who certainly treats of sal-ammoniac. But when these are compared with the medical works of this author, which are subject to no doubt, it is evidently perceived that the former must have been the production of a very different and much younger writer. In the works of the physician Avicenna, _sal-ammoniacus_ means always rock-salt. It is worthy of remark, that Avicenna the chemist says, that sal-ammoniac comes from Egypt, India, and Forperia.

We know with more certainty that Albucasis, or Bulcasis, was acquainted with sal-ammoniac, as well as the method of preparing it, which he describes, and also the preparation of medicines in general, in his book often printed under the title of _Liber servitoris_[988]. However unintelligible the translation often is, one can easily discover in what manner sublimation was formerly performed in earthen vessels. But the period when this Arabian writer lived is doubtful, though it is generally admitted that he died in the year 1122.

But whence did Europe obtain this salt, in the twelfth and succeeding centuries? When and in what manner was the preparation of it found out in Egypt? For what purpose was it first used by our ancestors? I have not yet met with any information to enable me to answer these questions, though it is probable that it might be found in old books of travels, and particularly in the works of Arabian writers. In the valuable but not altogether intelligible book of Pegolotti[989], from which I have learned many things respecting the trade of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, nothing is said in regard to the place where it was obtained, but that it was procured in white, hard, and opake cakes. It is mentioned in the custom-house tariff of Pisa for the year 1408.

Biringoccio, who lived in the end of the fifteenth and beginning of the following century[990], knew nothing more than that, according to report, it came from Cyrene or Armenia. Cæsalpin, his contemporary, gave, for the preparation of it, a prescription which is undoubtedly borrowed from the Arabians. This author says, very properly, that it is obtained in white transparent cakes, blackish on the outside; but adds, erroneously, that it comes from Germany, though the same thing has been repeated by Brasavolus and Matthioli. Porta says, with more truth, that it comes from the East. He asserts also, that he was the first person who found real sal-ammoniac on volcanic mountains, and he wishes that his discovery might be confirmed by skilful naturalists[991]. This may serve as an additional proof, were such necessary, in opposition to those who think that the first real sal-ammoniac introduced into commerce was the volcanic. Imperato considers Porta’s observation as generally acknowledged, but without naming him. The former has described, in a fuller and more correct manner than any of his predecessors, the properties of sal-ammoniac[992]; and he states, as does also Agricola[993], that it is entirely dissipated in the fire. He adds, that it promotes the production of a celestial blue colour, and in all probability he here alludes to a solution of copper.

Without attempting to examine at what time the art was discovered of converting the nitric acid into aqua regia by the addition of sal-ammoniac, I shall only remark that, at any rate, it was known in the sixteenth century; for Imperato says that sal-ammoniac is employed in the solution of gold; and Biringoccio[994], who is older, recommends nitrous acid prepared with sal-ammoniac for dissolving metals, and particularly gold. I will not either determine how old the use of this salt is in soldering and tinning; but I must observe, that it was known to Agricola[995] and Imperato. I however doubt whether it was very common, because Biringoccio[996] recommends borax for that purpose, without so much as mentioning sal-ammoniac; though it is possible that I may have overlooked it.

We are now arrived at the modern history, which I shall give in as brief a manner as I can, because it has been already fully treated on by others. What was long ago shown by the celebrated Mr. Boyle was proved in the year 1716 by Geoffroy the younger, that sal-ammoniac was composed of the muriatic acid and volatile alkali, and that it could be thence prepared in Europe by sublimation[997]. In the same year the jesuit Sicard gave the first certain account of the sal-ammoniac manufactories at Damayer, in the Delta, and described in what manner this salt was prepared there, by sublimation in glass vessels, from the soot of the burnt dung of camels and cows, which is used in Egypt for fuel, with the addition of sea salt and urine[998]. In the year 1719, the Academy of Sciences at Paris received from Lemere, the French consul at Cairo, an account of the process employed; but it contained no mention either of sea salt or of urine[999]. Afterwards this information was in part confirmed, and in part rectified and enlarged, by Paul Lucas[1000], Granger, or, as he was properly called, Tourtechot[1001], and the celebrated travellers Shaw, Pocock, Norden, Hasselquist, Niebuhr, and Mariti.

Several writers have asserted that sal-ammoniac comes also from the East Indies. It is mentioned by Tavernier among the wares which in his time were brought from Amadabat, in the territories of the Mogul, to Surat; and Geoffroy states, that when the trade of Marseilles was interrupted by the plague, the French obtained from Holland sal-ammoniac, which was shaped like a truncated cone, and was given out to be Indian[1002]. Pomet also says, that some of the same kind was formerly procured from Venice and Holland. But Gaubius asserts that he was never able to hear of any such sal-ammoniac in Holland[1003]; nor is it to be found in the price currents of the East India Company. I am almost inclined to suspect that these truncated cones were formed by the merchants from broken pieces or fragments of the Egyptian sal-ammoniac, by solution and imperfect crystallization or sublimation. In this manner the merchants at Marseilles convert the refuse of the Egyptian sal-ammoniac into cakes by a new sublimation, in order that it may become more saleable, though it is not readily purchased by artists. Gaubius, however, has described a kind of sal-ammoniac which he obtained from India, with the information that it was made in Hindostan from the soot of animal dung; but in my opinion this requires further confirmation[1004].

Where and at what time the first works for making sal-ammoniac were established in Europe, I am not able to determine. The account given by Thurneisser, that the first sal-ammoniac was made in the Tyrol in the ninth century, is truly ridiculous. It is not worth the trouble to inquire where he or Paracelsus found this foolish assertion. One might be almost induced to believe, that in the time of Boyle there were manufactories of sal-ammoniac in Europe[1005]. But perhaps there may be no other foundation for all this than the before-mentioned assertion of Cæsalpinus, that this salt came from Germany. At Bamberg, the Germans were long accustomed to boil the sediment of the salt-pans with old urine, and to sell it cheap for sal-ammoniac; and Weber asserts that some of the same kind is still made at Vienna. The hundred weight costs from twenty to thirty florins, but the refuse may be purchased for a mere trifle. If I am not mistaken, the first real manufactories of sal-ammoniac were established in Scotland; and the oldest of these, perhaps, was that erected by Dovin and Hutton at Edinburgh in 1756, and which, like many in England, manufactures this salt on a large scale[1006]. Among the later undertakings of this kind is Gravenhorst’s manufactory at Brunswick, and that which in the neighbourhood of Gothenburg manufactures sal-ammoniac from the refuse left in making train oil.

[Sal-ammoniac is now prepared either by the destructive distillation of bones or coal. The gas-liquor supplies, we believe, the largest part. This fluid contains hydrosulphuret and carbonate with some other salts of ammonia. It is decomposed with sulphuric acid, and on evaporation the sulphate of ammonia is obtained in a crystalline state. This is then mixed with common salt and the mixture heated in iron vessels, whereupon the muriate of ammonia sublimes.

Sal-ammoniac is exported in considerable quantities to Russia and other parts of the continent and to the United States.]

FOOTNOTES

[972] It is indeed a matter of indifference whether the name be derived from αμμος, _arena_, or rather from _Ammonia_, the name of a district in Libya, where the oracle of Jupiter Ammon was situated. The district had its name from sand. An H also may be prefixed to the word. See Vossii Etymol. p. 24. But _sal-armoniacus_, _armeniacus_, sal-armoniac, is improper.

[973] De Re Rust. vi. 17, 7.

[974] Lib. xxxi. cap. 7, sect. 39.

[975] Lib. v. cap. 126.

[976] This name was first used by Js. Holland.

[977] Synesii Opera, ep. 147.

[978] Athen. lib. ii. cap. 29, p. 67.

[979] I am fully of opinion that a town named in the new maps Kesem, and which lies in Arabia Felix, opposite to the island of Socotora, is here meant. It has a good harbour. See Büsching’s Geography, where the name _Korasem_ also occurs.

[980] Geopon. lib. vi. cap. 6.

[981] Pallad. i. tit. 41.

[982] Bibliothek d. Naturwiss. u. Chemie. Leip. 1775, 8vo, i. p. 219.

[983] Lib. xxxi. cap. 7, sect. 42.

[984] [The double chloride of ammonium and iron].

[985] Liber de holosantho in C. Gesner’s treatise De omni Rerum Fossilium Genere. Tiguri 1565, 8vo, p. 15.

[986] What a noble people were the Arabs! we are indebted to them for much knowledge and for many inventions of great utility; and we should have still more to thank them for were we fully aware of the benefits we have derived from them. What a pity that their works should be suffered to moulder into dust, without being made available! What a shame that those acquainted with this rich language should meet with so little encouragement! The few old translations which exist have been made by persons who were not sufficiently acquainted either with languages or the sciences. On that account they are for the most part unintelligible, uncertain, in many places corrupted, and besides exceedingly scarce. Even when obtained, the possessors are pretty much in the same state as those who make their way with great trouble to a treasure, which after all they are only permitted to see at a distance, through a narrow grate. Had I still twenty years to live, and could hope for an abundant supply of Arabic works, I would learn Arabic. But ὁ βίος βραχὺς, ἡ δὲ τέχνη μακρή.

[987] Africæ Descriptio, iii. p. 136, b.

[988] This book is often printed along with Mesue. See Haller’s Biblioth. Botan. i. p. 201. Biblioth. Chirur. i. p. 137.

[989] Della decima, iii. pp. 298, 373; and iv. pp. 59, 191.

[990] Pirotechnia, 1550, 4to, p. 36, a.

[991] Magia Natur. lib. x. cap. 20. Porta was born in 1545, and died in 1615.

[992] Lib. iii. cap. 8.

[993] De Natura Fossil, lib. iii. p. 212.

[994] Lib. ix. cap. 6, p. 131, b: also lib. ix. cap. 10, p. 141, b.

[995] De Natura Fossil. lib. iii. p. 215; in which he speaks of iron pins with tinned heads.

[996] Page 135, a and b, pp. 136, 375.

[997] Mémoires de l’Acad. 1720, p. 195. Basil Valentine had before taught how to separate the volatile alkali from sal-ammoniac by means of the fixed alkali.

[998] Nouveaux Mémoires des Missions de la Compag. de Jesus, ii.

[999] Mémoires de l’Acad. 1720, p. 191.

[1000] Voy. au Levant.

[1001] Mémoires de l’Acad. 1735, p. 107.

[1002] Mém. de l’Acad. 1723, p. 221, where a figure is given of it.

[1003] Gaubii Adversaria. Leidæ 1771, 4to, p. 138.

[1004] [As Dr. Royle observes, in his Essay on the Antiquity of Hindoo Medicine, p. 41, this salt must have been familiar to the Hindoos ever since they have burnt bricks, as they now do, with the manure of animals; as some may usually be found crystallized at the unburnt extremity of the kiln.]

[1005] Though the sal-ammoniac that is made in the East may consist in great part of camel’s urine, yet that which is made in Europe (where camels are rarities) and is commonly sold in our shops, is made of man’s urine.--Nat. Hist. of the Human Blood (Works, iv. p. 188).

[1006] Arnot’s History of Edinburgh. Ed. 1779, 4to, p. 601.

FORKS.

At present forks are so necessary at table among polished nations, that the very idea of eating a meal without them excites disgust. The introduction of them, however, is of so modern a date, that they have scarcely been in use three centuries. “Tam prope ab origine rerum sumus,” says Pliny, in speaking of a thing which, though very new, was then exceedingly common. Neither the Greeks nor the Romans have any name for these instruments; and no phrase or expression which, with the least probability, can be referred to the use of them, occurs anywhere in their writings. But had forks been known, this could not have been the case, since so many entertainments are celebrated by the poets or described by other writers; and they must also have been mentioned by Pollux, in the very full catalogue which he has given of articles necessary for the table.

The Greek word _creagra_ signified indeed a fork, but not a fork used at table. It meant merely a flesh-fork, or that instrument employed by cooks to take meat from a boiling pot, as is proved by the connexion of the words in all those passages where it occurs. It is mentioned by Pollux, and by Anaxippus, in Athenæus[1007], among the utensils of the kitchen; and the scholiast on Aristophanes says that this fork had a resemblance to the hand, and was used to prevent the fingers from being scalded. Suidas quotes a passage where the word denotes a hook at the end of a long pole, with which people, even at present, draw up water-buckets from wells and other deep places. This instrument, therefore, appears sometimes to have had only a hook, but sometimes two or more prongs. _Creagra_ occurs once in Martianus Capella, a Latin writer, but in a passage which is not intelligible.

Equally inapplicable to our forks are the words _furca_, _fuscina_, _fucilla_, _fuscinula_, and _gabalus_, which are given in dictionaries. The first two were undoubtedly instruments which approached nearly to our furnace and hay forks. The trident of Neptune also was called _fuscina_. The _furcilla_ even was large enough to be employed for a weapon of defence, as is proved by the expressions _furcillis ejicere_ and _expellere_. _Fuscinula_, which in modern times is used chiefly for a table fork, is not to be found even once in any of the old Latin writers. The old translation of the Bible only explains the word κρεάγρα by _fuscinula_. _Gabalus_, according to every appearance, has given rise to the German word _gabeln_, but it denotes the cross or gallows, which last word Voscius deduces from it.

A learned Italian, who asserts also that the use of forks is very new, is of opinion that the Romans often used _ligulæ_ instead of forks[1008]. This I shall not deny; but the _ligula_ certainly had more resemblance to a small spatula, or tea-spoon, than to our forks. According to Martial, many spoons at the other end seem to have been _ligulæ_[1009]. But the two epigrams must be read in conjunction, so that the second may appear a continuation of the first; for the epithets _habilis_ and _utilis_ can be applied to no other term than _ligula_. Besides, it is certain that the titles of the epigrams, or at least the greater part of them, were not added by the poet, but by transcribers. The name also, which originally was _lingula_, gives an idea of the form. We read likewise that this instrument was used for scumming, for which purpose nothing is less fit than a fork[1010].

I have, I know not how, a great unwillingness to represent the tables of our ancestors as without forks; yet this was certainly the case: and when we reflect on their manner of eating, it will readily be perceived that they could much easier dispense with the use of them than we can. All their food, as is still customary in the East, was dressed in such a manner as to be exceedingly tender, and therefore could be easily pulled to pieces. It appears however that people, though not in the earliest periods, employed the same means as our cooks, and suffered meat to lie some time that it might be easier dressed. We often read that cooks, in order to provide an entertainment speedily, will kill an animal, and having cleaned and divided it, roast it immediately, and then serve it up to their guests. But it is well known that the flesh of animals newly killed, if cooked before it has entirely lost its natural warmth, is exceedingly tender and savoury, as we are assured in many books of travels.

Formerly all articles of food were cut into small morsels before they were served up; and this was the more necessary, as the company did not sit at table, but lay on couches turned towards it, consequently could not well use both their hands for eating. For cutting meat, persons of rank kept in their houses a carver, who had learned to perform his duty according to certain rules, and who was called _scissor_, _carpus_, _carptor_, and by Apuleius is named _diribitor_[1011]. This person used a knife, the only one placed on the table, and which in the houses of the opulent had an ivory handle, and was commonly ornamented with silver[1012].

Bread also was never cut at table. In former times it was not baked so thick as at present, but rather like cakes, and could easily be broken; hence mention is so often made of the breaking of bread. Juvenal, when he wishes to describe old bread, does not say that it could not be cut, but that it could not be broken[1013]. The ancient form of bread is still retained in the paschal cake of the Jews, and in the _knæckbröd_[1014] of the Swedes. The latter, which is almost as brittle as biscuit, is not cut when used, but broken.

The Chinese, who also use no forks, have however small sticks of ivory, which are often of very fine workmanship, and inlaid with silver and gold. A couple of these is placed before each guest, who employs them for putting into his mouth the meat which has been cut into small bits. But even this resource was not known two centuries ago in Europe, where people, as is still done by the Turks, everywhere used their fingers. As a proof, I shall not quote passages where mention is made of persons putting their hands or fingers into the dish[1015]; for such a mode of speaking is yet employed, though forks, as is well known, are in common use. I shall refer only to one passage in Ovid, which admits of no doubt[1016], and where the author would certainly have mentioned these instruments, or rather have communicated to his pupils in the art of love a precept which at present is given to children, had the former been taught when young how to make use of forks.

Had they been used by the Romans, they must necessarily have occurred among the numerous remains of antiquity which have been collected in modern times. But Baruffaldi and Biörnstähl[1017], who both made researches respecting them, assure us that they were never able to find any. Count Caylus[1018] and Grignon[1019] only assert the contrary. The former has given a figure and description of a silver two-pronged fork, which was found among rubbish in the Appian Way. It is of exceedingly beautiful workmanship, and at one end terminates in a stag’s foot. Notwithstanding the high reputation of this French author, I cannot possibly admit that everything of which he has given figures is so old as he seems to imagine. Grignon found in the ruins of a Roman town in Champagne some articles which he considers as table-forks; but he merely mentions them, without giving a description sufficient to convince one of the truth of what he asserts, which, in regard to a thing so unexpected, was certainly requisite. One fork was of copper or brass; two others were of iron; and he says, speaking of the latter, that they seem to have served as table-forks, but were coarsely made. I however doubt whether he conjectured right in regard to the use of them.

As far as I know, the use of forks was first known in Italy towards the end of the fifteenth century; but at that time they were not very common. Galeotus Martius, an Italian, resident at the court of Matthias Corvinus, king of Hungary, who reigned from 1458 to 1490, relates, in a book which he wrote in regard to the life and actions of this prince, that in Hungary, at that time, forks were not used at table, as they were in many parts of Italy[1020], but that at meals each person laid hold of the meat with his fingers, and on that account they were much stained with saffron, which was then put into sauces and soup. He praises the king for eating without a fork, yet conversing at the same time and never dirtying his clothes.

That in France, at the end of the sixteenth century, forks even at court were entirely new, is proved by a book, already quoted in the present volume of this work, entitled l’Isle des Hermaphrodites. It will therefore excite no wonder that in the same century forks were not used in Sweden.

But it must appear very strange that Thomas Coryate, the traveller, should see forks for the first time in Italy, and in the same year be the first person who used them in England, on which account he was called, by way of joke, Furcifer[1021].

In many parts of Spain, at present, drinking-glasses, spoons and forks are rarities[1022]; and even yet, in taverns, in many countries, particularly in some towns of France, knives are not placed on the table, because it is expected that each person should have one of his own; a custom which the French seem to have retained from the old Gauls. But as no person would any longer eat without forks, landlords were obliged to furnish these, together with plates and spoons.

Among the Scotch highlanders, as Dr. Johnson asserts, knives have been introduced at table only since the time of the revolution. Before that period every man had a knife of his own as a companion to his dirk or dagger. The men cut the meat into small morsels for the women, who then put them into their mouths with their fingers. The use of forks at table was at first considered as a superfluous luxury, and therefore they were forbidden to convents, as was the case in regard to the congregation of St. Maur.

The English, Dutch and French have adopted the Italian names _forca_ and _forchetta_, given to our table-forks; though these appellations, in my opinion, were used at an earlier period to denote large instruments, such as pitch-forks, flesh-forks, furnace-forks; because in the low German, _forke_ is a very old name given to such implements. The German word _gabel_, which occurs first in dictionaries for these large instruments, is of great antiquity, and has been still retained in the Swedish and Dutch. It appears to have been used for many things which were split or divided into two; at any rate, it is certain that it is not derived from the Latin word _gabalus_.

FOOTNOTES

[1007] Athen. lib. iv. p. 169.

[1008] Hieron. Baruffaldi Sched. de armis convivalibus. In Salengri Nov. Thes. Antiq. Rom. iii. p. 742.

[1009] Mart. Epigr. xiv.

120. _Ligula Argentea._

Quamvis me ligulam dicant equitesque patresque,
Dicor ab indoctis lingula grammaticis.

121. _Cochlearia._

Sum cochleis habilis, sed nec minus utilis ovis;
Num quid scis potius cur cochleare vocer?

[1010] Plin. Hist. Natur. xxi. 14. Columella, ix. 15, 13. That the _ligula_ was smaller than the _cochlear_ is proved by Martial, viii. 23.

[1011] See this word in Pitisci, Lexicon Antiq. Rom.

[1012] Clemens Alexandr. Pædagog. lib. ii. p. 161. Posidonius relates, in Athenæus, iv. 13, p. 151, that the Gauls used to take roast meat in their hand and tear it to pieces with their teeth, or to cut it with a small knife which each carried in his girdle. This was told as a thing uncommon to the Greeks. Baumgarten, who quotes this passage in Algem. Welgeschichte, xvi. p. 657, adds, that Posidonius said also that the Gauls had bread so flat and hard that it could be easily broken. But this circumstance I cannot find in Athenæus.

[1013] Sat. v. 65.

[1014] This word, according to the Swedish dictionaries, signifies thin cakes, hard and crisp.

[1015] Homeri Odyss. xiv. 453.

[1016] De Arte Amandi, iii. 755.

[1017] Reisen, i. p. 268.

[1018] Rec. d’Antiq. iii. p. 312. tab. lxxxiv.

[1019] Bulletin des Fouilles, i. p. 17; ii. p. 131.

[1020] Galeoti Martii de Dictis et Factis Regis Matthiæ Liber. This work has also been printed in Schwandtneri Script. Rerum Hungar. tom. i. p. 548.

[1021] Coryate, in the year 1608, travelled for five months, through France, Italy, Switzerland, and a part of Germany. An account of this tour was published by him, in 1611, under the singular title of Crudities, a new edition of which appeared in 1776. He travelled afterwards to the East Indies, and in 1615 wrote in that country some letters which may be seen in Purchas his Pilgrims, vol. ii.; also in the second edition of the Crudities published in 1776. In page 90 of the Crudities the author says, “Here j will mention a thing that might have been spoken of before in discourse of the first Italian towne. J observed a custome in all those Italian cities and townes through the which j passed, that is not used in any other country that j saw in my travels, neither do j thinke that any other nation of Christendome doth use it, but only Italy. The Italian, and also most strangers that are commorant in Italy, do alwaies at their meales use a little forke when they cut their meat. For while with their knife which they hold in one hand they cut the meate out of the dish, they fasten their forke, which they hold in their other hand, upon the same dish; so that whatsoever he be that sitting in the company of any others at meale, should unadvisedly touch the dish of meate with his fingers from which all at the table doe cut, he will give occasion of offence unto the company, as having transgressed the lawes of good manners, insomuch that for his error he shall be at least brow beaten if not reprehended in wordes. This form of feeding j understand is generally used in all places of Italy; their forkes being for the most part made of yron or steele, and some of silver, but those are used only by gentlemen. The reason of this their curiosity is, because the Italian cannot by any meanes indure to have his dish touched with fingers, seeing all men’s fingers are not alike cleane. Hereupon j myselfe thought good to imitate the Italian fashion by this forked cutting of meate, not only while j was in Italy, but also in Germany, and oftentimes in England since j came home, being once quipped for that frequent using of my forke by a certain learned gentleman, a familiar friend of mine, one Mr. Laurence Whitaker, who in his merry humour doubted not to call me at table _furcifer_, only for using a forke at feeding, but for no other cause.”

[The use of forks was at first much ridiculed in England, as an effeminate piece of finery; in one of Beaumont and Fletcher’s plays, “your fork-carving traveller” is spoken of with much contempt; and Ben Jonson has joined in the laugh against them in his Devil’s an Ass, Act. v. Scene 4. Meercraft says to Gilthead and Sledge:--

“Have I deserved this from you two? for all
My pains at court, to get you each a patent.

“_Gilthead._ For what?

“_Meercraft._ Upon my project of the _forks_.

“_Sledge._ _Forks!_ What be they?

“_Meercraft._ The laudable use of forks,
Brought into custom here as they are in Italy,
To the sparing of napkins.”]

[1022] Fischer’s Reise nach Madrid, p. 238.

LOTTERY. TONTINE.

At present there are two kinds of lottery in Europe. One is called the Italian or Genoese lotto, or merely the lotto; the other is the common lottery well known in England. Of the former, which has been long proved to be attended with great deception, and must soon be universally acknowledged to be hurtful, I do not mean here to treat, but only of the latter, which at any rate may be honourable or harmless, if we do not take into account the delusion it occasions to credulous and ignorant people, by exciting hopes which have little probability in their favour. I however do not promise a complete history of this invention: it experienced so many changes before it acquired its present form, that to give a full account of them would be tiresome to me as well as to the reader.

I shall not either, as some have done, reckon among the first traces of lotteries every division of property made by lot, otherwise it might be said, that Joshua partitioned the promised land into lottery-prizes, before it was conquered. In my opinion the peculiarity of lotteries consists in this, that numbers are distributed gratuitously, or, as in our public lotteries, for a certain price, and it is then left to chance to determine what numbers are to obtain the prizes, the value of which is previously settled. The various conditions and changes invented by ingenuity to entice people to purchase shares, and to conceal and increase the gain of the undertakers, are not here taken into consideration, because they do not appear to be essential.

In the whole history of antiquity, I find nothing which has a greater resemblance to our lotteries than the _congiaria_ of the Romans; and I am inclined to think that the latter furnished the first hint for the establishment of the former. Rich persons at Rome, as is well known, and particularly the emperors, when they wished to gain or to strengthen the attachment of the people, distributed among them presents, consisting of eatables and other expensive articles, which were named _congiaria_. In general, tokens or tickets called _tesseræ_[1023] were given out, and the possessors of these, on presenting them at the store or magazine of the donor, received those things which they announced. In many cases these tickets were distributed _viritim_, that is, to every person who applied for them; and in that case these donations had a resemblance to our distributions of bread, but not to our lotteries, in which chance must determine the number of those who are to participate in the things distributed.

But in the course of time it became customary to call the people together, and to throw among them, from a stage, the articles intended for distribution, in the same manner as money is scattered among the populace at the coronation of the emperor, and on other solemnities. Such things, in this case, were called _missilia_, and belonged to those who had the good fortune to catch them. But as oil, wine, corn and other articles of the like kind, could not be distributed by throwing them in this manner, and as some articles were so much injured by the too great eagerness of the people, that they could be of little or no use, tokens or tickets were thrown out in their stead. At first these were square pieces of wood or metal, but sometimes also balls of wood inscribed with the name of the article which the possessor was to receive from the magazine[1024]. Like bank-notes they were payable to the bearer; and those who had obtained _tesseræ_ were allowed to transfer or to sell them to others. This is proved by a passage in Juvenal[1025], where allusion however is made only to the _tesseræ frumentariæ_, which were not thrown out, but distributed.

Imitations of these Roman _congiaria_, but indeed on a very reduced scale, have been employed in modern times by princes and princesses, in order to amuse themselves with distributing small presents to their courtiers. For this purpose various trinkets or toys are marked with numbers; these numbers are written upon separate tickets, which are rolled up and put into a small basket or basin. Each of the company then draws one out, and receives as a present the article marked with the same number. These small _congiaria_ were formerly called in German _glückstöpfe_, or _glückshäfen_; and in the course of time the present lotteries took their rise from them.

In Italy, where commerce, as is well known, was first formed into a regular system, and where the principal mercantile establishments and useful regulations were invented, the merchants or shopkeepers, even in the middle ages, were accustomed, in order that they might sell their wares in a speedier manner and with more advantage, to convert their shops into a _glücksbude_, where each person for a small sum of money was allowed to draw a number from the _glückstöpfe_ (jar of fortune), which entitled him to the article written upon it. At first governments gave themselves very little trouble about this mode of selling merchandise. But as the shopkeepers gained excessive profits, and cheated the credulous people by setting on their wares an extravagant price, which was concealed by the blanks, these _glückshäfen_ were forbidden, or permitted only under strict inspection, and in the course of time on paying a certain sum to the poor, or to the sovereign. In Germany they are still retained at many of the annual fairs; but in most countries they are subject to many limitations.

From these _glückshäfen_ were produced our lotteries, when articles of merchandise were no longer employed as prizes, but certain sums of money, the value of which was determined by the amount of the money received, after the expenses and gain required by the undertakers were deducted, and when the tickets were publicly drawn by charity-boys blindfolded. As these lotteries could not be conducted without defrauding the adventurers, it was at first believed, through old-fashioned conscientiousness, that it was unlawful to take advantage of the folly and credulity of the people, but for pious or charitable purposes.

Lotteries were then established by private persons, and in the course of time even by governments; and the clear gain was applied to the purpose of portioning poor young women, of redeeming slaves, of forming funds for the indigent, and to other objects of beneficence. It was also hoped that these public games of hazard would banish other kinds still more dangerous; and no one suspected that the exposing of tickets for sale, and the division of them, so that one could purchase an eighth or even a smaller share, would maintain and diffuse the taste of the public for gambling. This, however, increased; and the profit of lotteries became so great, that princes and ministers were induced to employ them as an operation of finance, and to hold the bank which always enriched the undertakers. People were then forbidden to purchase tickets in foreign lotteries, that the money won from the adventurers might pass into the sovereign’s treasury, or at any rate be retained in the country; and in order that tickets might be disposed of sooner and with more certainty, many rulers were so shameless as to pay the salaries of their servants partly in tickets, and to compel guild companies and societies to expend in lotteries what money they had saved[1026].

Of the oldest lotteries among the Italians I have not been able to find any account. Varchi, who wrote about the year 1537, relates that during a great scarcity of money at Florence in 1530, a lottery was established for the benefit of the state, and that the price of a ticket was a ducat. He however does not employ the term lottery, but uses the words _un lotto_, and calls a ticket _polizza_, a term which, as is well known, is generally used in regard to insurance. Le Bret says, that at Venice, in 1572, the inspection of lotteries was entrusted to the _proveditori del commune_; but as he does not mention the historian from whom this account is borrowed, the word which he translates lottery cannot be known. We nevertheless learn from his account, that this game was established at Venice in the middle of the sixteenth century, and placed under the inspection of the government.