Chapter III: Part 3

Another production of zinc, artificial white vitriol, was also long prepared, used and employed in commerce before it was known that it was procured from this metal. That it was not known before the middle of the sixteenth century, and that it was first made at Rammelsberg, may with confidence be affirmed. Schluter ascribes the invention of it to duke Julius, and places it in the year 1570: but it must be somewhat older than the above-quoted account of Rammelsberg; for the author, who wrote about 1565[94], relates, that in his time one citizen only, whom he calls Henni Balder, boiled white vitriol; and it appears that this person kept the process a secret. That the invention was not then new, is evident from his adding, that what its effects might be in medicine had not been examined; but that its use in making eye-water had been known almost as early as the time when it was discovered. This agrees with another account, according to which the method of boiling white vitriol was found out at the time when Christopher Sander, whose service to the Harz is well-known, was tithe-gatherer. Honemann says that Sander was tithe-gatherer at the mines of the Upper Harz before the year 1564, but that in this year he was principal tithe-gatherer and director of the mines and melting-houses at Goslar. Sander himself, in a paper dated August 3, 1575, seems to ascribe the invention of white vitriol to duke Julius[95].

At first this salt was called _Erzalaun_, a name occasioned by its likeness to alum, but afterwards it was more frequently known by those of _Gallitzenstein_, _Golitzenstein_, and _Calitzenstein_. The latter names however appear to be older than white vitriol itself; as we find that green vitriol, even before the year 1565, was called green _Gallitzenstein_. May not the word be derived from _gallæ_; because it is probable that vitriol and galls were for a long time the principal articles used for making ink and in dyeing? I am of opinion that the white vitriol, which is produced in the mines of Rammelsberg in the form of icicles, gave rise to the discovery and manufacture of this salt. The former, so early as the year 1565, was called white native vitriol, or white _Gogkelgut_, and was packed up in casks, and in that manner transported for sale[96]. I shall not here enter into the old conjectures respecting the origin and component parts of this vitriol; but it deserves to be remarked, that Henkel and Neumann[97] observed in it a mixture of zinc, by which Brandt, a member of the Swedish council of mines, was led to prove, that, when pure, it consists of vitriolic acid and oxide of zinc; and this was afterwards confirmed by Hellot[98].

I come now, in the last place, to the history of this metal, which, when furnace-calamine was used, could not remain long unobserved, as it is sometimes found amongst it uncalcined in metallic drops. It is worthy of remark, that Albertus Magnus, who first described the use of furnace-calamine in making brass, is the oldest author in whose works mention is made of zinc. He calls it _marchasita aurea_. This was properly a stone, the metallic particles of which were so entirely sublimated by fire, that nothing but useless ashes remained behind. It contained fixed quicksilver, communicated a colour to metals, on which account it was well known to the alchemists, burned in the fire, and was at length entirely consumed. It was found in various parts, but that at Goslar was the best, because the copper it contained seemed to have in it a mixture of gold. To give this copper however a still greater resemblance to gold, some tin was added to it, by which means it became more brittle. This marchasita also rendered copper white as silver. Thus far Albertus. It obtained without doubt the name of _marchasita aurea_, because zinc communicates a yellow colour to copper; and for the same reason the Greeks and the Arabians called _cadmia_ golden or _aurea_. But how could Albertus say that marchasite made copper white? Did he commit a mistake, and mean tin? To me this appears not probable, as at one time he seems to call it _argentea_. I imagine that he knew that copper, when mixed with as much zinc as possible, that is, according to Scheffer, eighty-nine pounds to a hundred, became white; and it appears that by this he wished to establish its affinity with quicksilver.

The next author who gives an intelligible account of this metal is Theophrastus Paracelsus, who died in 1541. I do not however imagine that it was forgotten in this long interval, at least by those who were called alchemists. I am rather of opinion, that on account of the great hopes which it gave them by the colouring of copper, they described it purposely in an obscure manner, and concealed it under other names, so that it was not discovered in their works. There are few who would have patience to wade through these, and the few who could do so, turn their attention to objects of greater importance than those which occupy mine. Gold and silver excepted, there is no metal which has had formerly so many and so wonderful names as zinc[99]. For this reason, chemists long believed that zinc was not a distinct metal, but only a variety of tin or bismuth; and with these perhaps it may hence have been often confounded.

The name zinc occurs first in Paracelsus. He expressly calls it a distinct metal, the nature of which was not sufficiently known; which could be cast, but was not malleable, and which was produced only in Carinthia. Was he then unacquainted with the zinc of Goslar, which was known at an earlier period to Albertus Magnus[100]? George Agricola, who wrote about the year 1550, speaks however of the Goslar zinc, but he calls it _liquor candidus_, and in German _conterfey_[101]. Mathesius, who published his sermons in 1562, says, “at Freyberg there is red and white zinc.” Perhaps he did not mean the metal, but minerals that contained zinc. George Fabricius, who died in 1571, conjectures that _stibium_ is what the miners call _cincum_, which can be melted, but not hammered.

It is seen by these imperfect accounts that this metal must have been scarce, even in the middle of the sixteenth century, and that it was not in the collection of Agricola, which was considerable for that period. Libavius, who died in 1616, mentions it several times, but he regrets, in one of his letters, that he had not been able to procure any of it[102]. Was this owing to the prohibition of duke Julius, by which it was forbidden to be sold? This prohibition is quoted by Pott from Jungii Mineralogia, with which I am unacquainted; but as Pott has already, by his unintelligible quotations, made me spend many hours to no purpose, I shall not waste more in searching for it. The prohibition alluded to is mentioned neither by Rehtmeier nor by any other author. The foolish taste for alchemy, which prevailed then at the duke’s court, makes it not altogether improbable that one was issued[103]; and if that was really the case, it was occasioned not so much by any dread of this metal being misused, as Pott thinks, but by the high hopes which were entertained of its utility in making gold. The first accurate and certain account of the method of procuring zinc at Goslar, is, as far as I know, given by Lœhneyss, in 1617, though he considers it to be the same as bismuth[104]. Joh. Schrœder of Westphalia, who died in 1664, calls it _marcasita pallida_.

The first person who purposely procured this metal from calamine, by the addition of some inflammable substance, was undoubtedly Henkel, who gave an account of his success in the year 1741, though he concealed the whole process[105]. After him, Dr. Isaac Lawson, a Scotsman, seems to have made experiments which proved the possibility of obtaining zinc in this manner on a large scale; and in 1737 Henkel heard that it was then manufactured in England with great advantage. Of this Lawson I know nothing more than what is related by Dr. Watson[106]. Anthony von Swab, member of the Swedish council of mines, procured this metal afterwards from calamine by distillation, in 1742; as did Marggraf in 1746, who appears however not to have been acquainted with the Swedish experiment. In the year 1743, one Champion established zinc works at Bristol, which were continued by his successor James Emerson, who established works of the like kind at Henham, in the neighbourhood. The manner in which the metal was procured, has been described by Dr. Watson in his Chemical Essays.

The greater part of this metal, used in Europe, was undoubtedly brought from the East Indies. The Commercial Company in the Netherlands, between the years 1775 and 1779, caused to be sold, on their account, above 943,081 pounds of it[107]. In the year 1780, the chamber of Rotterdam alone sold 28,000 pounds; and I find, by printed catalogues, that the other chambers, at that period, had not any of it in their possession. If the account given by Raynal be true, the Dutch East India Company purchased annually, at Palimbang, a million and a half of pounds[108]. In 1781, the Danish Company at Copenhagen purchased 153,953 pounds of tutenage, which had been carried thither in two vessels, at the rate of from four and one-eighth to four and a quarter schillings Lubec per pound. It is probable that the English and Swedes import this article also. It would be of some consequence if one could learn in what part of India, when, and in what manner this metal was first procured, and in what year it was first carried thence to Europe. According to the scanty information which we have on the subject, it comes from China, Bengal, Malacca[109], and the Malabar coast, from which copper and tin are also imported. In the oldest bills of lading of ships belonging to the Netherlands I find no mention of zinc; but it is possible that it may be comprehended under the name of Indian tin; for so it was at first called. Savot, who died about the year 1640, relates, on the authority of a contemporary writer[110], that some years before the Dutch had taken from the Portuguese a ship laden with this metal, which was sold under the name of _speautre_. It is probable therefore that it was brought to Europe so early as the beginning of the seventeenth century. Indian tin is mentioned by Boyle.

It is probable that this metal was discovered in India before anything of the European zinc had been known in that country; but we are still less acquainted with the cause of the discovery than with the method of procuring the metal. We are told that an Englishman, who, in the above century, went to India, in order to discover the process used there, returned with an account that it was obtained by distillation _ver descensum_.

Respecting the origin of the different names of this metal, I can offer very little. _Conterfey_ signified formerly every kind of metal made in imitation of gold[111]. Frisch says it was called _zink_, from which was formed first _zinetum_, and afterwards _zincum_, because the furnace-calamine assumes the figure of (_zinken_ or _zacken_) nails or spikes; but it is to be remarked that these names do not occur before the discovery of this metal, though _ofenbruch_ was known long before. Fulda speaks of the Anglo-Saxon _sin_, _zink_, which he translates _obryzum_. _Spiauter_, _speauter_, and _spialter_, from which Boyle made _speltrum_, and also _tutaneg_ or _tuttanego_, came to us from India with the commodity. Under the last-mentioned name is sometimes comprehended a mixture of tin and bismuth. _Calaem_ is also an Indian appellation given to this metal, and has a considerable likeness to calamine; but I am of opinion with Salmasius that the latter is not derived from the former, as _lapis calaminaris_ occurs in the thirteenth century, and _calaem_ was first brought to us by the Portuguese from India.

[Most of the zinc works in this country are situated in the neighbourhood of Birmingham and Bristol; a few furnaces also exist in the neighbourhood of Sheffield, among the coal-pits surrounding that town; there is also one at Maestag in Glamorganshire. The ores worked at Bristol and Birmingham are principally obtained from the Mendip-hills and Flintshire; those at Sheffield from Alston Moor. The greater part however of the zinc used in this country is imported in ingots and plates from Silesia, by way of Hamburg, Antwerp, Dantzic, &c. We receive annually from 100,000 to 170,000 cwts. from Germany; of this quantity, about 80,000 cwt. are entered for home consumption, and the rest is exported for India.

From its moderate price and the ease with which it can be worked, zinc is now extensively used for making water-cisterns, baths, pipes, covering of roofs, and a great many architectural purposes. It has also of late been employed in the curious art of transferring printing, known under the name of _Zincography_, but owing to the ease with which this metal becomes coated with a film of oxide or carbonate, by exposure to the air, the plates cannot be preserved for any great length of time.]

FOOTNOTES

[82] [It has been observed by an anonymous reviewer (British and Foreign Medical Review, vol. viii. p. 361) that a passage in Strabo authorises the belief that the ancients were acquainted with this metal in its separate state, and that it is the _false silver_, ψευδάργυρον, of that ancient geographer.]

[83] Bulletin des fouilles d’une ville Romaine, p. 11.

[84] Plin. lib. xxxiv. sect. 22.

[85] Zinc-ore, besides being mentioned by Aristotle and Strabo, is mentioned by Galen, De Simplic. Medicam. Facultatibus, lib. ix. p. 142. As he found no furnace-calamine when he resided in Cyprus, he procured from the overseer of the mines some raw _cadmia_, which had been found in the mountains and rivulets, and which certainly must have been calamine.

[86] At first it was called _æs cyprium_, but in the course of time only _cyprium_; from which was at length formed _cuprum_. It cannot however be ascertained at what periods these appellations were common. The epithet _cupreus_ occurs in manuscripts of Pliny and Palladius; but one cannot say whether later transcribers may not have changed _cyprius_ into _cupreus_, with which they were perhaps better acquainted. The oldest writer who uses the word _cuprum_ is Spartian; who says, in the Life of Caracalla, “cancelli ex ære vel cupro.” But may not the last word have been added to the text as a gloss? Pliny, book xxxvi. 26, says, “Addito cyprio et nitro;” which Isidore, xvi. 15, p. 393, expresses by the words _adjecto cupro et nitro_. The superiority of the Cyprian copper gave occasion to this appellation; as the best iron or steel was called _chalybs_, from the _Chalybes_ (a people of Galatia) who prepared the finest, and carried on the greatest trade with it. But in what did the superiority of this Cyprian copper consist? In its purity, or in its colour, which approached near to that of gold? That island produced a great deal of ore which contained zinc, and abounded also with calamine. Pliny says, “in Cypro prima fuit æris inventio.” Red copper however had been known there from the earliest periods, so that the honour of its invention must be allowed to that island without any contradiction; and Pliny must undoubtedly allude in the above passage to some particular kind.

[87] Dioscorides, book v. c. 84, first mentions some sorts of _cadmia_, βοτρυίτις, πλακωτὴ and ὀστρακῖτις. These, according to Galen and Pliny, are undoubtedly certain kinds of (_ofenbruch_) furnace-calamine; but Salmasius in his book De Homonymis, p. 230, and Sarracen in his Annotations, p. 113, are of opinion that Dioscorides considered them as native kinds of _cadmia_, or minerals abundant in zinc. I cannot however allow myself to believe that Dioscorides, who was so careful, and who immediately after describes the artificial preparation of _cadmia_ clearly and properly, should have thus erred. Besides, every kind of _ofenbruch_ (furnace-calamine) must have discovered its origin from fire to such a good judge of minerals as Dioscorides. I am convinced that he, as well as Galen and Pliny, considered the above kinds as furnace-calamine.

Pompholyx was the name of the white flowers of zinc which Dioscorides, v. 85, p. 352, compares to wool, and which by chemists were formerly called _lana philosophica_. The ancients collected these flowers when produced by the melting of zinc-ore; but they obtained them also by an apparatus which is fully described by Dioscorides and Galen, and which approaches near to that used for collecting arsenic in the poison melting-houses, as they are usually called.

[88] This however I will not with certainty affirm. As _calmey_ and _galmey_ have probably taken their rise from _cadmia_ or _calimia_, and as both these words signified proper calamine, as well as _ofenbruch_, the latter, perhaps, may at an earlier period have signified furnace-calamine.

[89] Proofs respecting this subject may be found in Salmasius De Homonymis.

[90] It is not certainly known when this Zosimus Panopolitanus lived. His works, which must contain abundance of information respecting the history of chemistry, have never yet been printed. The greater part of them were preserved in the king’s library at Paris. The receipt to which I allude has been inserted by Salmasius, p. 237.

[91] We read in Observations sur la Physique, vi. p. 255, that for many years _tutia_ has been collected and sold in the bishopric of Liege. Lehmann endeavours to show that it was made by the Jews in Poland. Novi Comment. Acad. Petrop. xii. p. 381. As the use of tutia [which is an impure oxide of zinc found in the chimneys of the furnaces in which zinc-ores are roasted, or in which zinciferous lead-ores are smelted] has been almost abandoned, because physicians prefer pure flowers of zinc, and because those who make pinchbeck employ purified zinc, it is probable that this substance will soon be entirely neglected.

[92] De Mineralibus. Coloniæ, 1569, 12mo, p. 350, lib. iv. cap. 5; and lib. v. cap. 7, p. 388.

[93] The other edition was printed at Stockholm and Hamburg, by Liebezeit, and is the same as that mentioned by H. Gatterer, in Anleitung den Harz zu bereisen, i. p. 313, and ii. p. 13.

[94] “White vitriol also is made at Goslar, but by one citizen only, named Henni Balder. It is not procured by the evaporation of copper like other vitriol; but when large quantities of ore are roasted in the furnaces, a red substance is from time to time collected on the refuse of the ore, and found in some places half an ell thick. This substance, which is saltish, is formed into a lye, and boiled in small leaden pans. The rest of the process I do not know, but I observed that it crystallizes like saltpetre, but is stronger and whiter. It is also cast into small cakes about the thickness of one’s hand. This vitriol is employed by the leather-dressers, and may be used for many things instead of alum; but it cannot be used in dressing white skins, because it makes them yellowish.”

[95] Bruckmann, ii. p. 446. [Schwartze, in his Pharm. Tabell. 2nd edit. p. 779, states that white vitriol was known towards the end of the thirteenth or at the commencement of the fourteenth century.]

[96] Calvor, Historische Nachricht, p. 199 and 200. Properly it is written and pronounced _jöckel_. It is very remarkable that in Iceland this word at present signifies icicles.

[97] Chemie, von Kessel, iv. 2, p. 832, where may be found the old opinions on this subject.

[98] Brandt, in Acta Upsaliens. 1735. Hellot, in Mémoires de l’Acad. des Sciences, Paris, 1735, p. 29. [Sulphate of zinc or white vitriol is at present manufactured in considerable quantity for pharmaceutical purposes, and for the calico-printer.]

[99] A great many may be found collected in Fuchs, Geschichte des Zinks. Erfurt, 1778, 8vo.

[100] Paracelsi Opera. Strasb. 1616, fol. I shall here transcribe the principal passage. Of zinc:--There is another metal, zinc, which is in general unknown. It is a distinct metal of a different origin, though adulterated with many other metals. It can be melted, for it consists of three fluid principles, but it is not malleable. In its colour it is unlike all others, and does not grow in the same manner; but with its _ultima materia_ I am as yet unacquainted, for it is almost as strange in its properties as _argentum vivum_. It admits of no mixture, will not bear the _fabricationes_ of other metals, but keeps itself entirely to itself.

[101] De Re Metallica, lib. ix. p. 329.

[102] In J. Hornung’s Cista Medica. Lipsiæ.

[103] How much duke Julius, who in other respects did great service to his country, suffered himself to be duped by the art of making gold, appears from an anecdote given by Rehtmeier, p. 1016. Of this anecdote I received from M. Ribbentrop an old account in manuscript, which one cannot read without astonishment. There is still shown, at the castle of Wolfenbuttle, an iron stool, on which the impostor, Anna Maria Zieglerinn, named Schluter Ilsche, was burnt, February 5, 1575.

[104] Page 83:--“When the people at the melting-houses are employed in melting, there is formed under the furnace, in the crevices of the wall, among the stones where it is not well plastered, a metal which is called zinc or _conterfeht_; and when the wall is scraped, the metal falls down into a trough placed to receive it. This metal has a great resemblance to tin, but it is harder and less malleable, and rings like a small bell. It could be made also, if people would give themselves the trouble; but it is not much valued, and the servants and workmen only collect it when they are promised drink-money. They however scrape off more of it at one time than at another; for sometimes they collect two pounds, but at others not above two ounces. This metal, by itself, is of no use, as, like bismuth, it is not malleable; but when mixed with tin, it renders it harder and more beautiful, like the English tin. This zinc or bismuth is in great request among the alchemists.”

[105] Kieshistorie, p. 571, and particularly p. 721.

[106] Pott refers to Lawson’s Dissert. de Nihilo, and quotes some words from it; but I cannot find it; nor am I surprised at this, as it was not known to Dr. Watson.--See Chemical Essays, iv. p. 34. Pryce, in Mineral. Cornub., p. 49, says, “The late Dr. J. Lawson, observing that the flowers of _lapis calaminaris_ were the same as those of zinc, and that its effects on copper were also the same with that semi-metal, never remitted his endeavours till he found the method of separating pure zinc from that ore.” The same account is given in the supplement to Chambers’s Dictionary, 1753, art. _calm._ and _zinc_; and in Campbell’s Political Survey of Britain, ii. p. 35. The latter however adds, that Lawson died too early to derive any benefit from his discovery.

[107] Ricards Handbuch der Kaufleute, i. p. 57.

[108] Raynal says that the company purchase it at the rate of twenty-eight florins three-quarters per hundred weight, and that this price is moderate. At Amsterdam, however, the price was commonly from seventeen to eighteen florins banco. According to a catalogue which I have in my possession, the price, on the 9th of May, 1788, was seventeen florins, and on the 22nd of January, 1781, it was only sixteen.

[109] Linschoten, b. ii. c. 17. The author calls it _calaem_, the name used in the country. It is a kind of tin.

[110] De Nummis Antiquis; in Grævii Thes. Antiq. Rom. xi. p. 1195.

[111] Matthesius, Pred. v. p. 250.--“_Conterfeil_ is a metal of little value, formed by additions and colouring substances, so that it resembles gold or silver, as an image, or anything counterfeited, does its archetype. Thus copper is coloured by calamine and other mixtures, in such a manner that it appears to be pure gold.” In the police ordinance issued at Strasburg in 1628, young women are forbidden to wear gold or silver, or any _conterfaite_, and everything that might have the appearance of gold or silver.

CARP.

So obscure is the ichthyology of the ancients, or so little care has been taken to explain it, that the question whether our carp were known to Aristotle, Pliny, and their contemporaries, cannot with any great degree of probability be determined. Besides, that subject is attended with much greater difficulties than the natural history of quadrupeds. Among four-footed animals there is a greater variety in their bodily conformation, which at any rate strikes the eye more, and can be more easily described than that of fishes, which in general are so like in shape, that an experienced systematic naturalist finds it sometimes difficult to determine the characters of the genera and species. It is not surprising therefore that the simple descriptions of the ancients, or rather the short accounts which they give us of fish, do not afford information sufficient to enable us to distinguish with accuracy the different kinds. Quadrupeds may terrify us by their ferocity, or endeavour to avoid us by shyness and craft; but it is still possible to observe their sexes, their age, and their habits, and to remark many things that are common to one or only a few species. Fishes, on the other hand, live in an element in which we cannot approach them, and which for the most part conceals them from our observation. The chase, since the earliest periods, and in modern times more than formerly, has been the employment of idle persons, who bestow upon it greater attention the fewer those objects are which can attract their curiosity or employ their minds: but fishing has almost always been the laborious occupation of poor people, who have no time to make observations, as they are obliged to follow it in order to find a subsistence; and mankind in general seldom see fish except on their tables or in collections of natural history. On this account those properties of fish by which their species could be determined, were less known. The descriptions of four-footed animals which have been handed down to us from the time of the Greek and Roman writers, give us, at any rate, some information; but from those of fishes, which are more uncommon, we can scarcely derive any; unless one were as acute or easy of belief as many collectors of petrefactions, who imagine that they can distinguish each species of fish in the impressions which they see in stones. More however might be done towards elucidating the ichthyology of the ancients than has hitherto been attempted. It would be necessary only to make a beginning by collecting the species and names which can with certainty be determined, together with the authorities, and separating them from the rest; and an abstract should be formed of what is said in the ancients respecting the unknown species, or whatever may in any measure serve to make us acquainted with them; but mere conjectures ought never to be given as proofs, nor ought the opinions of commentators, or the explanations of dictionaries to be adopted without sufficient grounds. If these are to be believed without further examination, the names _cyprini_ and _lepidoti_ must be considered as those of carp; and the proposed question would be soon answered: but that opinion has scarcely probability in its favour when one searches after proofs.

I shall not here lay before the reader everything completely that the ancients have said respecting the _cyprini_, and which is in part so corrupted by transcribers, that no certain meaning can be drawn from it. Were I to treat of the ichthyology of the ancients, it might be necessary; but as that is not the case, I shall only quote such parts of it as have been employed by Rondelet and others to prove that they were our carp. Their principal grounds seem to be, that among all the fish of the ancients no others occur which can with any probability be considered as carp. If the _cyprini_ therefore were not carp, these must not have been named by the ancients; and that undoubtedly will not readily be admitted. It is well known what a high value the ancients, particularly the Orientals, set upon fish, of which they had a great variety; and it appears that they preferred them to all dishes prepared from four-footed animals or fowls. Fish seem to have been the choicest delicacies of voluptuaries, and in that respect they are oftener mentioned by historians than fowls. Physicians also, to whom the most sumptuous tables have in all ages been of the greatest benefit, speak of fish oftener in their writings than of dishes made of the flesh of other animals. In the ancient cookery, the number of dishes prepared from fish is indeed great in comparison of those dressed from fowls. _Turdi_ and _attagines_ are much praised; but had pheasants, snipes, partridges, and others, been as much esteemed then as they are now, these would not have been forgotten, or would have occurred oftener. Fish at present form the principal food in Greece, as well as at Constantinople, and a great abundance and variety of them may be found there in the markets; but fowls which have been caught or shot are seldom exposed for sale. When the Egyptian and Greek monks wished to distinguish themselves by abstinence and temperance, they denied themselves all kinds of fish, as the richest delicacies, in the same manner as pretended devotees among the Europeans deny themselves flesh. But though all this may be true, it does not prove that our carp must occur in the writings of the ancients. The Roman voluptuaries, indeed, left very little untried that was likely to gratify their appetite; but it was impossible for them to make a trial of everything. There may have been particular reasons which prevented them from meeting with carp; and who will venture to affirm that all the knowledge of the ancients must be contained in those few of their writings which have been preserved to us by accidents?

If one, freed from these prejudices, should now ask why the _cyprinus_ must be our carp, the answer will be, because what we read of the tongue and scales of the _cyprini_ cannot be applied with so much propriety to any species of fish as to the _Cyprinus carpio_ of Linnæus. Aristotle informs us that the _cyprini_ had properly no tongue, but that their soft fleshy palate might very readily be taken for one[112]. Athenæus affirms that they had a tongue, but that it lay in the upper part of the mouth or palate; and in confirmation of this he refers to Aristotle[113]. This assertion of Athenæus however is very dubious; for these words are not to be found in the works of Aristotle which have been preserved, though the same meaning might be indeed forced, in case of necessity, from the passage first quoted. It is possible that Athenæus, as Casaubon[114] has already conjectured, may here, as well as in other parts, allude to some book of Aristotle not now extant. Besides, he calls the fish of which he speaks, not _cyprinus_, but _cyprianus_; and a question therefore arises, whether he may not have meant some other kind. This much at any rate appears certain from the passage of Aristotle, that the _cyprinus_ had a thick fleshy palate; and that indeed is the case with our carp, so that the head, on account of the delicacy and agreeable taste of the palate, is reckoned the most relishing part. By that circumstance however nothing is proved; as it is not peculiar to carp alone, but common to every species of the same family, such as the bream, tench, &c. Fish of this kind, says Bloch, have properly no tongue; that which appears to be one is merely a cartilaginous substance which projects through those band-like parts that enclose it on each side. This proof would have more weight, did we find it related, that in the time of Aristotle, the tongue was considered as an exquisite morsel: but that is not mentioned; and H. Krunitz is mistaken, when he says that Heliogabalus, to satisfy his luxurious appetite, was induced to try a fricassee of the tongues of carp: it consisted only of the tongues of peacocks and nightingales[115]. Had the ancients really used carp on their tables, we must have ascribed to them the discovery of these delicious fish.

The other proof which is brought from the scales consists in what is said by Dorion, in Athenæus[116], that the _cyprianus_ was called also by some _lepidotus_, or scaly. As nearly all fish have scales, the scales of this species must have been extremely large, as they got that name by way of eminence; and it must be indeed allowed, that the above epithet would suit our carp exceedingly well, as their scales are very large. But this circumstance alone proves nothing, as the _Mullus_ and _Mugil_ have still larger scales; and to the first genus belonged one of the fish most esteemed by the ancients[117]. Strabo mentions the _lepidotus_ among the sacred fish of the Nile; but whether it be the same as that of which Dorion speaks, cannot be determined. It is certain that the Nile contains carp still; for Norden saw them caught at the waterfall near Essuane, which is the ancient Syene. Did we know that the modern Greeks at present call carp _cyprini_, this would prove more; for it is an undoubted fact that the ancient names have for the most part been retained in Greece. We are assured by Massarius[118], that the Greeks still use the name _cyprinus_; but Gyllius says that it is employed only by a few: and this is confirmed by Bellon, who mentions all the names of carp which he heard in Greece, and which are entirely different from the ancient[119]; but he adds, that carp in Ætolia are still called _cyprini_. Both the before-mentioned circumstances respecting the _cyprini_ agree extremely well with our carp; but as they will suit other kinds equally well, they afford no complete proof, but only a probability which amounts to this, that among the large-scaled fish, carp in particular have a fleshy palate; and it is readily admitted that the ancients were acquainted with all kinds, and chose names for them with more foundation than is done at present.

In opposition to this probability it may be said that Oppian and Pliny reckon the _cyprini_ among the sea-fish, to which kind our carp do not belong. This reply however, which some have indeed made, is not of great weight. In the first place, both these writers seem to have been in an error; for what Pliny says of the _cyprini_ is evidently taken from Aristotle, and the latter does not tell us that these fish live in the sea, but rather the contrary. The Roman author, as Dalechamp remarks, added the words _in mari_, if they were not added by some transcriber. Oppian as a poet does not always adhere strictly to truth; and he makes more of the freshwater fish of Aristotle to be inhabitants of the sea. In the second place, I consider the distinction made between sea-fish, freshwater fish and those kept in ponds, to be not always very certain or well founded. Who knows whether the greater part of the last may not have been originally sea-fish? This is the more probable in regard to carp, as Professor Foster says that carp are sometimes caught in the harbour at Dantzic[120].

In order to answer the question here proposed, another point may be considered. As all nations at present give these fish the same name, it is probable that it was brought with them from that country where they were first found, and from which they were procured. Cassiodorus, who lived in the sixth century, is the oldest author as yet known in whom that name has been observed[121]. In a passage where he speaks of the most delicate and costly fish, which at that time were sent to the tables of princes, he says, “Among these is the _carpa_, which is produced in the Danube.” In the earliest Latin translation of Aristotle, the word _cyprinus_, as Camus says, is expressed by _carpra_. In the thirteenth century this fish was called by Vincentius de Beauvais[122] _carpera_, and by Cæsarius _carpo_; and it is highly probable that both these names allude to our carp. By the above passage of Cassiodorus, the opinion that these fish were the _cyprini_ of the ancients obtains a new, but at the same time a very feeble proof; for the _cyprinus_ was found also in the Danube, as we learn from Ælian[123], who among the fish of the Ister, mentions black _cyprini_; and these, according to the conjecture of Professor Schneider, were the black fish of the Danube which Pliny considers as unhealthful or poisonous, and like which there were some in Armenia. Our carp indeed are not poisonous, but Pliny alludes to a particular variety, and what he says was only report, to which something must have given rise, as also to the idea of carp with a death’s head, and the head of a pug-dog, as some have been represented by writers of the sixteenth century. The _carpo_ of Cæsarius appears to have been our carp, because its scales had a very great resemblance to those of the latter; for we are told in the work already quoted, that the devil, once indulging in a frolic, appeared in a coat of mail, and had scales like the fish _carpo_. The _carpera_ of Vincent de Beauvais is still less doubtful, as the same craft in avoiding rakes and nets is ascribed to that fish as is known to be employed by our carp. Sometimes they thrust their heads into the mud and suffer the net to pass over them; and sometimes they join the head and tail together, and separating them suddenly, throw themselves towards the surface of the water, and springing often four or five feet above the net, make their escape.

But whence did this name arise? The origin assigned by Vincentius, or the anonymous author of the lost books De Natura Rerum, like another mentioned in ridicule by Gesner, is too silly to be repeated. More learned at any rate is the derivation of Menage, who traces it from _cyprinus_, which was afterwards transformed into _cuprinus_, _cuprius_, _cuprus_, _cupra_, _curpa_, and lastly into _carpa_. For my part, I am more inclined to derive it from a dialect which was spoken on the banks of the Danube, and to believe that it was brought with the fish from the southern part of Europe; but I am too little acquainted with that dialect to be able to render my conjecture very probable; and the etymologists I consulted, such as Wachter, Ihre, Johnson, &c., afforded me no assistance. Fulda gave me some hopes, as he allows the word to be of German extraction; but I must confess that his derivation is too far-fetched, and like the chemistry of the adepts, to me not perfectly intelligible.

It may perhaps not be superfluous here to observe that one must not confound _carpa_ and _carpo_, or our carp, with _carpio_. The latter belongs to the genus of the salmon and trout; and in the Linnæan system is called _Salmo carpio_. It is found chiefly in the Lago di Garda, the ancient Lacus Benacus, on the confines of Tyrol. The oldest account of this fish is to be found in works of the sixteenth century, such as the poems of Pierius Valerianus, and in Jovius de Piscibus. According to Linnæus, it is found in the rivers of England; but that is false. This celebrated naturalist suffered himself to be misled by Artedi, who gives the char or chare, mentioned by Camden in his description of Lancashire, as the _Salmo carpio_. Pennant however, by whom it is not mentioned among the English fish, says expressly that the char is not the _carpio_ of the Lago di Garda, but rather a variety of the _Salmo alpinus_[124].

That our carp were first found in the southern parts of Europe, and conveyed thence to other countries, is undoubtedly certain. Even at present they do not thrive in the northern regions, and the further north they are carried the smaller they become[125]. Some accounts of their transportation are still to be found. If it be true that the Latin poem on the expedition of Attila is as old as the fifth or sixth century, and if the fish which Walther gave to the boatman who ferried him over the Rhine, and which the latter carried to the kitchen of Gunther king of the Franks, were carp, this circumstance is a proof that these fish had not been before known in that part of France which bordered on the Rhine[126]. The examination of this conjecture I shall however leave to others. D’Aussy quotes a book never printed, of the thirteenth century, entitled Proverbes, and in which is given an account of the best articles produced at that time by the different parts of the kingdom, and assures us that a great many kinds of fish were mentioned in it, but no carp, though at present they are common all over France.

It appears also that there were no carp in England in the eleventh century, at least they do not occur in the Anglo-Saxon Dictionary of Ælfric, who in 1051 died archbishop of York[127]. We are assured likewise that they were first brought into the kingdom in the fifth year of the reign of Henry VIII., or in 1514, by Leonard Mascal of Plumsted in Sussex[128]. What we read in the Linnæan System, that these fish were first brought to England about the year 1600, is certainly erroneous. Where that celebrated naturalist, under whom I had the pleasure of studying, acquired this information, I do not know.

Denmark is indebted for these fish to that celebrated statesman Peter Oxe, who introduced them into the kingdom as well as cray-fish, and other objects for the table. He died in the year 1575.

We are told that these fish were brought from Italy to Prussia, where they are at present very abundant, by a nobleman whose name is not mentioned. This service however may be ascribed with more probability to the upper burg-grave, Caspar von Nostiz, who died in 1588, and who in the middle of the sixteenth century first sent carp to Prussia from his estate in Silesia, and caused them to be put into the large pond at Arensberg not far from Creuzburg. As a memorial of this circumstance, the figure of a carp, cut in stone, was shown formerly over a door at the castle of Arensberg. This colony must have been very numerous in the year 1535, for at that period carp were sent from Königsberg to Wilda, where the archduke Albert then resided. At present (1798) a great many carp are transported from Dantzic and Königsberg to Russia, Sweden, and Denmark. It appears to me probable that these fish after that period became everywhere known and esteemed, as eating fish in Lent and on fast-days was among Christians considered to be a religious duty, and that on this account they endeavoured to have ponds stocked with them in every country, because no species can be so easily bred in these reservoirs.

I shall observe in the last place, that the _Spiegel-carpen_, mirror-carp, distinguished by yellow scales, which are much larger, though fewer in number, and which do not cover the whole body, are not mentioned but by modern writers. Bloch says that they were first described by Johnston under the name of royal carp. The passage where he does so I cannot find; but in plate xxix. there is a bad engraving, with the title _Spiegel-karpen_, which however have scales all over their bodies, and cannot be the kind alluded to. On the other hand, the _Spiegel-karpen_ are mentioned by Gesner, who, as it appears, never saw them. In my opinion, Balbinus, who wrote in the middle of the sixteenth century, was the first person who gave a true and complete description of them; and according to his account, they seem to have come originally from Bohemia. The first correct figure of them is to be found in Marsigli.

FOOTNOTES

[112] Histor. Animal. lib. iv. cap. 8.

[113] Lib. vii. p. 309.

[114] Animadvers. vii. 17, p. 540.

[115] Lampridii Vita Heliogab. c. 20.

[116] Lib. vii. p. 309.

[117] This fish was a first-rate article of luxury among the Romans, and was purchased at a dear rate. Juvenal says, “Mullum sex millibus emit, æquantem sane paribus sestertia libris.” See Plin. lib. ix. c. 17. The Italians have a proverb, “La triglia non mangia chi la piglia,” which implies, that he who catches a mullet is a fool if he eats it and does not sell it. When this fish is dying, it changes its colours in a very singular manner till it is entirely lifeless. This spectacle was so gratifying to the Romans, that they used to show the fish dying in a glass vessel to their guests before dinner.

[118] Fr. Massarii in ix. Plinii. libr. Castigat. Bas. 1537, 4to.

[119] A great service would be rendered to the natural history of the ancients, if some able systematic naturalist would collect all the Greek names used at present. Tournefort and others made a beginning.

[120] Philosophical Transact. vol. lxi. 1771, part i. 310.

[121] Variorum, p. 380.

[122] Speculum Naturale.

[123] De Nat. Anim. xiv.--Plin. xxxi. sect. 19.--Antig. Car. c. 181.

[124] British Zoology, vol. iii. p. 259.

[125] Pontoppidan, Natürliche Historie von Norwegen, ii. p. 236.

[126] De Prima Expedit. Attilæ, ed. Fischer. Lips. 1780, 4to.

[127] Printed at the end of Somneri Dict. Saxonicum.

[128] See Anderson’s Hist. of Commerce, and Pennant’s Zoology, p. 300. Both these authors refer to Fuller’s British Worthies. [The carp existed in England before the year 1486: for in Dame Juliana Berners’ work on Angling, which was published at St. Albans (hence called the Book of St. Albans) in 1486, we find the following passage: speaking of the carp, she says “That it is a deyntous fysshe, but there ben but few in Englonde. And therefore I wryte the lesse of hym. He is an euyll fysshe to take. For he is so stronge enarmyd in the mouthe, that there maye noo weke harnays hold him.”]

CAMP-MILLS.

Under this appellation are understood portable or moveable mills, which can be used, particularly in the time of war, when there are neither wind- nor water-mills in the neighbourhood, and which on that account formerly accompanied armies in the same manner as camp-ovens and camp-forges. Some of these mills have stones for grinding the corn, and others are constructed with a notched roller like those of our coffee-mills. Some of them also are so contrived that the machinery is put in motion by the revolution of the wheels of the carriage on which they are placed; and others, and perhaps the greater part of those used, are driven by horses or men, after the wheels of the carriage are sunk in the ground, or fastened in some other manner.

To the latter kind belongs that mill of which Zonca[129] has given a coarse engraving, but without any description. He says it was invented by Pompeo Targone, engineer to the well-known marquis Ambrose Spinola; and he seems to place the time of the invention about the end of the sixteenth century. This mill is the same as that described by Beyer in his Theatrum Machinarum Molarium, and represented in the twenty-seventh plate of that work[130]. Beyer remarks that it was employed by Spinola.

The inventor, as his name shows, was an Italian, who made himself known, in particular, at the celebrated siege of Rochelle, under Louis XIII., at which he was chosen to assist, because in the year 1603, when with Spinola, who was consulted respecting the operations at Rochelle, he had helped by means of a mole to shut the harbour of Ostend during the tedious siege of that place. He was likewise in the French service, as _intendant des machines du roi_; but his numerous and expensive undertakings did not succeed according to his expectations[131]. He invented also a particular kind of gun-carriages, and a variety of warlike machines[132].

Another old figure of such a mill was shown to me by Professor Meister, in Recueil de Plusieurs Machines Militaires, printed in 1620. This machine was driven by the wheels of the carriage; but whether it was ever used the author does not inform us.

Lancellotti[133] ascribes this invention to the Germans, about the year 1633.

Carriages for transporting camp-forges and mill-machinery are mentioned by Leonard Fronsperger[134], but he does not say whether complete mills were affixed to them.

FOOTNOTES

[129] Novo Teatro di Machine ed Edificii, di Vittorio Zonca. Padoua, 1621, and reprinted in 1656, fol. The greater part of the machines delineated in this scarce book are engines for raising heavy bodies; but many of them are used in various trades and manufactures, and may serve in some measure to illustrate the history of them.

[130] J. M. Beyer’s Schauplatz der Mühlen-Bau-kunst. Leipzig, 1735, fol. Reprinted at Dresden, 1767.

[131] All those authors who have written expressly on the fate of the Huguenots, the History of Richelieu, Louis XIII., and the siege of Rochelle, make mention of Targone.

[132] Histoire de la Milice Françoise, par Daniel. Amst. 1724, i. p. 332.

[133] L’Hoggidi, overo gl’Ingegni non inferiori a’ passati. Ven. 1636, 8vo.

[134] Kriegsbuch, Frankf. 1596, fol. p. 9.

MIRRORS[135].

It is highly probable that a limpid brook was the first mirror[136], but we have reason to think that artificial mirrors were made as mankind began to exercise their art and ingenuity on metals and stones. Every solid body, capable of receiving a fine polish, would be sufficient for this purpose; and indeed the oldest mirrors mentioned in history were of metal. Those which occur in Job[137] are praised on account of their hardness and solidity; and Moses relates[138], that the brazen laver, or washing-basin, was made from the mirrors of the women who had assembled at the door of the tabernacle to present them, and which he caused them to deliver up. As the women appeared in full dress at divine worship, it was necessary for them to have looking-glasses after the Egyptian manner. With these the washing-basins, according to the conjecture of most interpretators, were only ornamented, covered, or perhaps hung round; and Michaelis[139] himself was once of this opinion. But why should we not rather believe that the mirrors were melted and formed into washing-basins? As soon as mankind began to endeavour to make good mirrors of metal, they must have remarked that every kind of metal was not equally proper for that use, and that the best could be obtained only from a mixture of different metals. In the mirrors however which were collected by Moses, the artists had a sufficient stock of speculum metal, and were not under the necessity of making it themselves; and for this reason they could much more easily give to the whole basin a polished surface, in which the priests, when they washed, might survey themselves at full length. At any rate such a basin would not be the only one employed instead of a mirror. Artemidorus[140] says that he who dreams of viewing himself in a basin, will have a son born to him by his maid. Dreams indeed are generally as groundless as this interpretation; but one can hardly conjecture that Artemidorus would have thought of such a dream, had it not been very common for people to contemplate themselves in a basin. There were formerly a kind of fortune-tellers, who pretended to show in polished basins to the simple and ignorant, what they wished to know[141]. The ancients also had drinking-vessels, the inside of which was cut into mirrors, so disposed that the image of the person who drank from them was seen multiplied[142]. Vopiscus mentions, among the valuable presents of Valerian to the emperor Probus, when a tribune, a silver cup of great weight, which was covered on the inside with mirrors of this sort[143].