A History of Inventions, Discoveries, and Origins, Volume II (of 2)

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 Zonca¹²⁹ 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 work¹³⁰. 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 expectations¹³¹. He invented also a particular kind of gun-carriages, and a variety of warlike machines¹³².

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.

Lancellotti¹³³ ascribes this invention to the Germans, about the year 1633.

Carriages for transporting camp-forges and mill-machinery are mentioned by Leonard Fronsperger¹³⁴, but he does not say whether complete mills were affixed to them.

MIRRORS ¹³⁵

It is highly probable that a limpid brook was the first mirror¹³⁶, 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 Job¹³⁷ are praised on account of their hardness and solidity; and Moses relates¹³⁸, 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 Michaelis¹³⁹ 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. Artemidorus¹⁴⁰ 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 know¹⁴¹. 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 multiplied¹⁴². 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 sort¹⁴³.

Menard and others conjecture that mirrors in the time of Homer were not much used, because he mentions them on no occasion, not even where he describes in so circumstantial a manner the toilet of Juno¹⁴⁴. In answer to this, however, I have two things to observe. In the first place, it is not to be expected that Homer should have mentioned every article with which he was acquainted; and secondly, we are assured by Callimachus, where he evidently has imitated the passage of Homer before-quoted¹⁴⁵, that neither Juno nor Pallas employed a mirror when they dressed. Mythology therefore did not allow the poet to introduce a mirror upon the toilet of that deity. Polydore Vergilius, Boccace, Menard, and others have all fallen into the error of making Æsculapius the inventor of mirrors, though Cicero¹⁴⁶ seems to say the same thing; but the best commentators have long since observed very justly, that the Roman philosopher alludes not to a mirror but to a probe, the invention of which we may allow to the father of medicine, who was at first only a surgeon.

When one reflects upon the use made of metal mirrors, particularly at Rome, to add to magnificence and for other purposes, and how many artists, during many successive centuries, were employed in constructing them, and vied to excel each other in their art, one cannot help conjecturing that this branch of business must at those periods have been carried to a high degree of perfection. It is therefore to be regretted that they have not been particularly described by any writer, and that on this account the art was entirely lost after the invention of glass mirrors, which are much more convenient. No one at that time entertained the least suspicion that circumstances would afterwards occur which would render these metal mirrors again necessary, as has been the case in our days by the invention of the telescope. Our artists then were obliged to make new experiments in order to discover the best mixture for mirrors of metal; and this should be a warning to mankind, never to suffer arts which have been once invented and useful to become again unknown. A circumstantial description of them should at any rate be preserved for the use of posterity, in libraries, the archives of human knowledge.

When we compare metals in regard to their fitness for mirrors, we shall soon perceive that the hardest of a white colour possess in the highest degree the necessary lustre. For this reason platina is preferable to all others, as is proved from the experiments made by the Count von Sickengen. Steel approaches nearest to this new metal, and silver follows steel; but gold, copper, tin and lead, are much less endowed with the requisite property. I have however observed among the ancients no traces of steel mirrors; and it is probable they did not make any of that metal, as it is so liable to become tarnished, or to contract rust. An ancient steel-mirror is indeed said to have been once found, but as some marks of silvering were perceived on it, a question arises whether the silvered side was not properly the face of the mirror¹⁴⁷. Besides, every person knows that a steel mirror would not retain its lustre many centuries amidst ruins and rubbish.

The greater part of the ancient mirrors were made of silver, not on account of costliness and magnificence, as many think, but because silver, as has been said, was the fittest and the most durable of all the then known unmixed metals for that use. In the Roman code of laws, when silver plate is mentioned, under the heads of heirship and succession by propinquity, silver mirrors are rarely omitted; and Pliny¹⁴⁸, Seneca¹⁴⁹, and other writers, who inveigh against luxury, tell us, ridiculing the extravagance of the age, that every young woman in their time must have a silver mirror. These polished silver plates may however have been very slight, for all the ancient mirrors, preserved in collections, which I have ever seen, are only covered with a thin coat of that expensive metal; and in the like manner our artists have at length learned a method of making the cases of gold and silver watches so thin and light, that every footman and soldier can wear one. At first the finest silver only was employed for these mirrors, because it was imagined that they could not be made of that which was standard; but afterwards metal was used of an inferior quality. Pliny tells us so expressly, and I form the same conclusion from a passage of Plautus¹⁵⁰. Philematium having taken up a mirror, the prudent Scapha gives her a towel, and desires her to wipe her fingers, lest her lover should suspect by the smell that she had been receiving money. Fine silver however communicates as little smell to the fingers as gold; but it is to be remembered that the ancients understood much better than the moderns how to discover the fineness of the noble metals by the smell, as many modes of proof which we use to find out the alloy, were to them unknown. Money-changers therefore employed their smell when they were desirous of trying the purity of coin¹⁵¹. The witty thought of Vespasian, who, when reproached on account of his tax upon urine, desired those who did so to smell the money it produced, and to tell him whether it had any smell of the article which was the object of it, alludes to this circumstance. In the like manner many savage nations at present can by their smell determine the purity of gold¹⁵².

We are informed by Pliny, that Praxiteles, in the time of Pompey the Great, made the first silver mirror, and that mirrors of that metal were preferred to all others. Silver mirrors however were known long before that period, as is proved by the passage of Plautus above-quoted. To reconcile this contradiction, Meursius remarks that Pliny speaks only of his countrymen, and not of the Greeks, who had such articles much earlier, and the scene in Plautus is at Athens. This therefore seems to justify the account of Pliny, but of what he says afterwards I can find no explanation. Hardouin is of opinion, that mirrors, according to the newest invention, at that period, were covered behind with a plate of gold, as our mirrors are with an amalgam. But as the ancient plates of silver were not transparent, how could the gold at the back part of them produce any effect in regard to the image? May not the meaning be, that a thin plate of gold was placed at some distance before the mirror in order to throw more light upon its surface? But whatever may have been the case, Pliny himself seems not to have had much confidence in the invention.

Mirrors of copper, brass and gold, I have found mentioned only by the poets, who perhaps employed the names of these metals because they best suited their measure, or because they wished to use uncommon expressions, and thought a golden mirror the noblest. By the brass ones perhaps are to be understood only such as were made of mixed copper. Did golden mirrors occur oftener, I should be inclined to refer the epithet rather to the frame or ornaments than to the mirror itself; for at present we say a gold watch, though the cases only may be of that metal.

Mirrors seem for a long time to have been made of a mixture of copper and tin, as is expressly said by Pliny¹⁵³, who adds, that the best were constructed at Brundisium. This mixture, which was known to Aristotle, produces a white metal, which, on account of its colour, may have been extremely proper for the purpose, and even at present the same mixture, according to the careful experiments made by Mr. Mudge, an Englishman¹⁵⁴, produces the best metal for specula. It appears that the ancients had not determined the proportion very accurately; for Pliny assures us twice that in his time mirrors of silver were preferred. It is indeed not easy to ascertain the quantity of each metal that ought to be taken, and the most advantageous degree of heat; upon which a great deal depends. One of the principal difficulties is to cast the metal without blisters or air-holes, and without causing any part of the tin to oxidize, which occasions knots and cracks, and prevents it from receiving a fine polish. A passage of Lucian¹⁵⁵, which no one as yet has been able to clear up, alludes certainly, in my opinion, to these faults. A mixture of copper and tin is so brittle, that it is very liable to crack; and a mirror formed of it, if not preserved with great care, soon becomes so dim, that it cannot be used till it has been previously cleaned and polished. For this reason a sponge with pounded pumice-stone was generally suspended, from the ancient mirrors, and they were kept likewise in a case or box, as may be seen by the greater part of those still extant. Mirrors of silver were less subject to this inconvenience, and I am inclined to think that the latter on this account made the former be disused, as we are informed by Pliny.

As ancient mirrors of metal are still to be found in collections of antiquities, it might be of some importance to the arts if chemical experiments were made on their composition. Those who have hitherto given us any account of them have contented themselves with describing their external figure and shape. Count Caylus¹⁵⁶ is the only person, as far as I know, who caused any chemical experiments to be undertaken on this subject. They were made on a mirror found near Naples, by M. Roux, who asserts that the composition was a mixture of copper and regulus of antimony, with a little lead. Antimony however was not known to the ancients. If that metal was really a component part, the mirror must have been the work of more modern times, or it must be allowed that the artist had metal combined with antimony without knowing it; but the latter is not probable. The experiments made by Roux do not seem to me to have proved in a satisfactory manner the presence of regulus of antimony; moreover, no certain information can be derived from them, for the antiquity of the mirror was not ascertained; nor was it known whether it ought to be reckoned amongst the best or the worst of the period when it was made.

Those mirrors, which were so large that one could see one’s self in them at full length, must, in all probability, have consisted of polished plates of silver; for to cast plates of such a size of copper and tin would have required more art than we can allow to those periods; and I do not know whether our artists even now would succeed in them¹⁵⁷.

We read in various authors, that, besides metals, the ancients formed stones into mirrors, which were likewise in use. It is undoubtedly certain that many stones, particularly of the vitreous kind, which are opake and of a dark colour, would answer exceedingly well for that purpose; but let the choice have been ever so good, they would not, in this respect, have been nearly equal to metals. These of all mineral bodies have the most perfect opacity; and for that reason the greatest lustre: both these properties are produced by their solidity; and hence they reflect more perfectly, and with more regularity, the rays of light that proceed from other bodies. Our glass mirrors, indeed, are properly metallic. Stones, on the other hand, have at any rate some, though often hardly perceptible, transparency; so that many of the rays of light are absorbed, or at least not reflected. Mention of stone mirrors occurs also so seldom in the ancients, that we may conclude they were made rather for ornament than real utility. In general, we find accounts only of polished plates or panels of stone, fixed in the walls of wainscoted apartments, which were celebrated on account of their property of reflection.

Pliny¹⁵⁸ praises in this respect the obsidian stone, or, as it is now called, the Icelandic agate. Everything that he says of it will be perfectly intelligible to those who are acquainted with this species of stone or vitrified lava. The image reflected from a box made of it, which I have in my possession, is like a shadow or silhouette; but with this difference, that one sees not only the contour, but also the whole figure distinctly, though the colours are darkened. To form it into images and utensils, which Pliny speaks of, must have been exceedingly difficult, on account of its brittleness. I saw at Copenhagen, among other things made of it, a drinking-cup and cover, on which the artist had been employed four years.

Domitian, when he suspected that plots were formed against him, caused a gallery, in which he used to walk, to be lined with phengites, which by its reflection showed everything that was done behind his back¹⁵⁹. Under that appellation we are undoubtedly to understand a calcareous or gypseous spar, or selenite, which is indeed capable of reflecting an image; but we cannot therefore pretend to say that the ancients formed mirrors of it; nor do I explain what Pliny says, where he speaks of the phengites, as if whole buildings had been once constructed of it¹⁶⁰. That kind of stone, for various reasons, and particularly on account of its brittleness, is altogether unfit for such a purpose. At those periods, the windows of houses were open, and not filled up with any transparent substance, but only covered, sometimes by lattices or curtains. It is probable, therefore, that those openings of the walls of the building mentioned by Pliny, where the windows used to be, were filled up with phengites, which, by admitting a faint light, prevented the place from being dark even when the doors were shut; so that Pliny might say, “It appeared as if the light did not fall into the building, but as if it were inclosed in it.”

I might be accused of omission did I not here mention also a passage of Pliny¹⁶¹, where he seems to speak of a mirror made of an emerald, which Nero used to assist him to see the combats of the gladiators. Cary asserts that Nero was short-sighted, and that his emerald was formed like a concave lens. The former is expressly said by Pliny¹⁶², but the latter, though by Abat considered not improbable¹⁶³, I can scarcely allow myself to believe, because such an interpretation of Pliny’s words is too forced, and because they can be explained much better in another manner. As no mention of such an excellent help to short-sighted people is to be found in any other ancient author, we must allow, if Cary’s opinion be adopted, that this property of the concave emerald was casually remarked, and that no experiments were made to cut any other natural or artificial glass in the same form for the like use, because people imagined that this property was peculiar to the emerald alone, which was then commonly supposed to be endowed with the power of greatly strengthening the eye-sight. Much more probable to me is the explanation of an Italian, which Abat also does not entirely reject, that the emerald had a smooth polished surface, and served Nero as a mirror¹⁶⁴; and the passage of Pliny alluded to seems to have been thus understood by Isidore¹⁶⁵ and Marbodæus. It may here be objected, that real emeralds are too small to admit of being used as mirrors; but the ancients speak of some sufficiently large for that purpose, and also of artificial ones¹⁶⁶; so that we may with certainty conclude, that they classed among the emeralds fluor-spar green vitrified lava, or the green Icelandic agate as it is called, green jasper, and also green glass. The piece of green glass in the monastery of Reichenau, which is seven inches in length, three inches in thickness, and weighs twenty-eight pounds three-quarters; and the large cup at Genoa, which is however full of flaws¹⁶⁷, have been given out to be emeralds even to the present time.

Mirrors were made also of rubies, as we are assured by Pliny¹⁶⁸, who refers to Theophrastus for his authority; but this precious stone is never found now of such a size as to render this use possible; and Gary and the anonymous Italian before-mentioned have proved very properly that Pliny has committed a gross mistake, which has not been observed by Hardouin. Theophrastus, in the passage alluded to¹⁶⁹, does not speak of a ruby, but of the well-known black marble of Chio, though he calls both carbunculus, a name given to the ruby on account of its likeness to a burning coal, and to the black marble on account of its likeness to a quenched coal or cinder; and the latter, as well as the obsidian stone, was used sometimes for mirrors.

The account how mirrors were formed by the native Americans, before they had the misfortune to become acquainted with the Europeans, is of considerable importance in the history of this art. These people had indeed mirrors which the Europeans could not help admiring. Some of them were made of black, somewhat transparent, vitrified lava, called by the Spaniards gallinazo, and which is of the same kind as the obsidian stone employed by the Romans for the like purpose. Of this substance the Americans had plane, concave, and convex mirrors. They had others also made of a mineral called the Inca’s stone¹⁷⁰, which, as has been already said by Bomare, Sage, Wallerius, and other mineralogists, was a compact pyrites or marcasite, susceptible of a fine polish; and on that account often brought to Europe, and worn formerly in rings under the name of the stone of health. Ulloa says the Inca’s stone is brittle, opake, and of a somewhat bluish colour; it has often veins which cannot be polished, and where these veins are it frequently breaks. The mirrors formed of it, which he saw, were from two to three inches in diameter; but he saw one which was a foot and a half. The opinion which some have entertained, that these mirrors were cast, has no other foundation than the likeness of polished marcasite to cast brass. This mineral is very proper for reflecting images; and I am inclined to think that the Peruvians had better mirrors than the Greeks or the Romans, among whom we find no traces of marcasite being employed in that manner. It appears, however, that the Indians had mirrors also of silver, copper, and brass¹⁷¹.

I come now to the question in what century were invented our glass mirrors, which consist of a glass plate covered at the back with a thin leaf of metal. This question has been answered by some with so much confidence, that one might almost consider the point to be determined; but instead of real proofs, we find only conjectures or probabilities; and I must here remark, that I cannot help thinking that they are older than has hitherto been supposed, however desirous I may be to separate historical truth from conjecture. When I have brought together everything which I know on the subject, I would say, that attempts were even made at Sidon to form mirrors of glass; but that they must have been inferior to those of metal, because they did not banish the use of the latter. The first glass mirrors appear to me to have been of black-coloured glass, or an imitation of the obsidian stone; and to have been formed afterwards of a glass plate with some black foil placed behind it¹⁷². At a much later period, blown glass, while hot, was covered in the inside with lead or some metallic mixture; and still later, and, as appears, first at Murano, artists began to cover plates of glass with an amalgam of tin and quicksilver. The newest improvements are, the casting of glass-plates, and the art of making plates equally large by blowing and stretching, without the expensive and uncertain process which is required for casting.

That glass mirrors were made at the celebrated glass-houses of Sidon, is mentioned so clearly by Pliny that it cannot be doubted¹⁷³. When I read the passage, however, without prejudice, without taking into consideration what others have said on it, and compare it with what certain information the ancients, in my opinion, give on the same subject, I can understand it no otherwise than as if the author said, that the art of manufacturing glass various ways was invented, principally, at Sidon, where attempts had been made to form mirrors of it. He appears therefore to allude to experiments which had not completely succeeded; and to say that such attempts, at the time when he wrote, had been entirely abandoned and were almost forgotten. Had this circumstance formed an epoch in the art, Pliny, in another place, where he describes the various improvements of it so fully, would not have omitted it; but of those experiments he makes no further mention¹⁷⁴. All the inventions which he speaks of, evidently relate to metal mirrors only, of which the silver, at that time, were the newest. Had the Sidonian mirrors consisted of glass plates covered at the back, those of metal, the making of which was, at any rate, attended with no less trouble, which were more inconvenient for use on account of their aptness to break, their requiring to be frequently cleaned and preserved in a case, and which were more unpleasant on account of the faint, dull image which they reflected, could not possibly have continued so long in use as they really did; and circumstances and expressions relative to glass mirrors must certainly have occurred. Though glass continued long to be held in high estimation, particularly at Rome; and though many kinds of glass-ware are mentioned in ancient authors, among costly pieces of furniture, mirrors are mentioned only among articles of silver plate. I am acquainted with no certain trace of glass mirrors from the time of Pliny to the thirteenth century; but after that period, at which they are spoken of in the clearest manner, we find them often mentioned in every century; and mirrors of metal at length entirely disappear.

How the Sidonian mirrors were made, is not known; but if I may be allowed a conjecture, I am of opinion that they consisted of dark-coloured glass, which had a resemblance to the obsidian stone. Such is the usual progress of inventions. At those periods one had no other representation of glass mirrors than that afforded by natural glass or vitreous stones. When artists wished to make mirrors of glass, they would try to imitate the latter. After the invention of printing, people endeavoured to render printed books as like as possible to manuscripts; because they imagined that this invention was to be approved only so far as it enabled them to imitate these, without observing that it could far excel the art of writing. But the Sidonian glass mirrors were so much surpassed by the silver or brass ones, which perhaps were invented about the same time, that on this account they were never brought into use. Glass mirrors, perhaps, would have been invented sooner, had mankind employed at an earlier period glass-windows, which often, when they are shut on the outside so that no light can pass through them, reflect images in a much better manner than the best mirrors of metal. This observation, which may be made daily, would then, in all probability, have been sooner turned to advantage.

No one has employed a greater profusion of words to maintain an opinion opposite to mine, than Abat; but when his proofs are divested of their ornaments, they appear so weak that one has very little inclination to agree with him. “The observation,” says he, “that a plate of glass is the best mirror, when all other rays of light, except those reflected back from the glass, are prevented, by a metallic covering placed behind it, from falling on the eye, is so easy, that it must have been made immediately after the invention of glass.” Who does not think here of Columbus and his egg? Instances occur in history of many having approached so near an invention, that we are astonished how they could have missed it; so that we may exclaim with a certain emperor, “Taurum toties non ferire difficile est¹⁷⁵.” “The Sidonian invention,” continues he, “would not have been worth mentioning, had it not produced better mirrors than those which the ancients had before of the obsidian stone. But these even are mentioned only once, in so short and abrupt a manner, and as it were out of ridicule, that one may easily perceive they were not much esteemed.” “If the Sidonians,” adds he, “were not the inventors, let some other inventor be mentioned;” and he assures us that he had sought information on this subject, in Neri, Kunkel, and Merret, but without success. That I believe; but Abat does not remark that by the same manner of reasoning we may ascribe to the Sidonians the invention of watches, and many other articles, the inventors of which are not to be found in books where they ought as much to be expected as the inventor of glass in Neri. The grounds on which many old commentators of the Bible, Nicholas de Lyra and others, have supposed that glass mirrors were known so early as the time of Moses, are still weaker. If quoting the names of writers who entertain a like opinion be of any weight, I could produce a much greater number of learned men, who, after an express examination of the question, deny altogether that glass mirrors were used by the ancients.

Dr. Watson¹⁷⁶ also has endeavoured to support the opinion of Abat, but with less confidence and with more critical acumen. His grounds, I think, I have weakened already; but one observation here deserves not to be overlooked, because it suggests an idea that may serve to illustrate a passage of Pliny, which, as I before remarked, has never yet been explained. “If we admit,” says he, “that Pliny was acquainted with glass mirrors, we may thus understand what he says respecting an invention, which was then new, of applying gold behind a mirror.” Instead of an amalgam of tin, some one had proposed to cover the back of the mirror with an amalgam of gold, with which the ancients were certainly acquainted, and which they employed in gilding¹⁷⁷. He mentions, also, on this occasion, that a thought had once occurred to Buffon, that an amalgam of gold might be much better for mirrors than that used at present¹⁷⁸. This conjecture appears, at any rate, to be ingenious; but when I read the passage again, without prejudice, I can hardly believe that Pliny alludes to a plate of glass in a place where he speaks only of metallic mirrors; and the overlaying with amalgam requires too much art to allow me to ascribe it to such a period without sufficient proof. I consider it more probable that some person had tried, by means of a polished plate of gold, to collect the rays of light, and to throw them either on the mirror or the object, in order to render the image brighter.