Kitobni o'qish: «A History of Inventions, Discoveries, and Origins, Volume II (of 2)», sahifa 7

GLASS-CUTTING. ETCHING ON GLASS

I do not here mean to enter into the history of engraving on stone, as that subject has been already sufficiently illustrated by several men of learning well acquainted with antiquities. I shall only observe, that the ancient Greek artists formed upon glass both raised and engraved figures; as may be seen by articles still preserved in collections, though it is probable that many pieces of glass may have been moulded like paste; for that art also is of very great antiquity²⁰⁴. It appears likewise that they cut upon plates of glass and hollow glass vessels all kinds of figures and ornaments, in the same manner as names, coats of arms, flowers, landscapes, &c. are cut upon drinking-glasses at present²⁰⁵. If we can believe that learned engraver in stone, the celebrated Natter, the ancients employed the same kind of instruments for this purpose as those used by the moderns²⁰⁶. They undoubtedly had in like manner a wheel which moved round in a horizontal direction above the work-table, or that machine which by writers is called a lapidary’s wheel.

If this conjecture be true, what Pliny says respecting the various ways of preparing glass is perfectly intelligible. It is turned, says he, by the wheel, and engraven like silver. In my opinion we are to understand by the first part of this sentence, that the glass was cut by the wheel, like stone, both hollow and in relief, though it is possible that drinking-cups or vessels may have been formed from the glass metal by means of the wheel also²⁰⁷. In the latter part of the sentence we must not imagine that Pliny alludes to gravers like those used by silversmiths, for the comparison will not apply to instruments or to the manner of working, which in silver and glass must be totally different; but to the figures delineated on the former, which were only cut out on the surface in a shallow manner; and such figures were formed on glass by the ancient artists, as they are by our glass-cutters, by means of a wheel.

Many, however, affirm that the art of glass-cutting, together with the necessary instruments, was first invented in the beginning of the seventeenth century. The inventor is said to have been Casper Lehmann, who originally was a cutter of steel and iron; and who made an attempt, which succeeded, of cutting crystal, and afterwards glass, in the like manner. He was in the service of the emperor Rodolphus II., who, in the year 1609, besides presents, conferred on him the title of lapidary and glass-cutter to the court, and gave him a patent by which every one except himself was forbidden to exercise this new art. He worked at Prague, where he had an assistant named Zacharias Belzer; but George Schwanhard the elder, one of his scholars, carried on the same business to a far greater extent. The latter, who was a son of Hans Schwanhard, a joiner at Rothenburg, was born in 1601; and in 1618 went to Prague to learn the art of glass-cutting from Lehmann. By his good behaviour he so much gained the esteem of his master, who died a bachelor in 1622, that he was left his heir; and obtained from the emperor Rodolphus a continuation of Lehmann’s patent. Schwanhard, however, removed to Nuremberg, where he worked for many of the principal nobility; and by these means procured to that city the honour of being accounted the birth-place of this new art. In the year 1652 he worked at Prague and Ratisbon by command of the emperor Ferdinand III., and died in 1667, leaving behind him two sons, who both followed the occupation of the father. The elder, who had the same christian name as the father, died so early as 1676; but the other, Henry, survived him several years. After that period Nuremberg produced in this art more expert masters, who, by improving the tools and devising cheaper methods of employing them, brought it to a much higher degree of perfection²⁰⁸.

That the art is of so modern date seems to be confirmed by Zahn, who speaks of it as of a new employment carried on at that time, particularly at Nuremberg. He describes the work-table as well as the other instruments; and gives a figure of the whole, which he appears to have considered as the first²⁰⁹. It may be seen, however, from what I have already quoted, that this invention does not belong entirely to the moderns; and, to deny that the ancients were altogether unacquainted with it, would be doing them an injustice. It was forgotten and again revived; and this is the opinion of Caylus.

I must here remark, that before this invention there were artists, who, with a diamond, cut or engraved figures on glass, which were everywhere admired. Without entering, however, into the history of diamonds, which would require more materials than I have yet been able to collect, I will venture to assert that the ancient artists employed diamond dust for polishing or cutting other kinds of stones. Pliny²¹⁰ speaks of this in so clear a manner that it cannot be doubted. The same thing has been repeated by Solinus²¹¹, Isidore²¹², and Albertus Magnus²¹³, in a manner equally clear, and Mariette²¹⁴ considers it as fully proved; but it does not appear that the ancients made any attempts to cut this precious stone with its own dust; I mean to give it different faces and to render it brilliant. Whether they engraved on it in that manner I cannot pretend to decide, as the greatest artists are not agreed on the subject. Mariette²¹⁵ denies that they did; whereas Natter²¹⁶ seems not to deny it altogether, and Klotz²¹⁷ confidently asserts it as a thing certain. But the last-mentioned author knew nothing more of this circumstance than what he had read in the above-quoted writers.

The question which properly belongs to my subject is, whether the Greeks and the Romans used diamond pencils for engraving on other stones. That many ancient artists assisted their labour by them, or gave their work the finishing touches, seems, according to Natter, to be shown by various antique gems. But even allowing this to have been the case (for at any rate I dare not contradict so eminent a connoisseur), I must confess that I have found no proofs that the ancients cut glass with a diamond. We are however acquainted with the means employed by the old glaziers to cut glass: they used for that purpose emery, sharp-pointed instruments of the hardest steel, and a red-hot iron, by which they directed the rents according to their pleasure.

The first mention of a diamond being used for writing on glass occurs in the sixteenth century. Francis I. of France, who was fond of the arts, sciences, and new inventions, wrote the following lines with his diamond ring upon a pane of glass, at the castle of Chambord, in order to let Anne de Pisseleu, duchess of Estampes, know that he was jealous:

 
Souvent femme varie,
Mal habil qui s’y fie.
 

The historian recorded this not so much on account of the admonition, which is not new, as because it was then thought very ingenious to write upon glass²¹⁸. About the year 1562, festoons and other ornaments, cut with a diamond, were extremely common on Venetian glasses, which at that period were accounted the best. George Schwanhard the elder was a great master in this art²¹⁹; and in more modern times, John Rost, an artist of Augsburg, ornamented in a very curious manner with a diamond pencil, some drinking-glasses which were purchased by the emperor Charles VI.

I now come to the art of etching on glass, which properly was the subject of this article. As the acid which dissolves siliceous earth, and also glass, was first discovered in the year 1771, by Scheele the chemist²²⁰, in fluor-spar, one might imagine that the art of engraving with it upon glass could not be older. It has indeed been announced by many as a new invention²²¹; but it can be proved that it was discovered as early as the year 1670, by the before-mentioned artist Henry Schwanhard. We are told that some aquafortis having fallen by accident upon his spectacles, the glass was corroded by it; and that he thence learned to make a liquid by which he could etch writing and figures upon plates of glass²²². How Schwanhard prepared this liquid I find nowhere mentioned; but at present we are acquainted with no other acid but that of fluor-spar which will corrode every kind of glass; and it is very probable that his preparation was the same as that known to some artists as a secret in 1721. The inventor however employed it to a purpose different from that for which it is used at present.

At present the glass is covered with a varnish, and those figures which one intends to etch are traced out through it; but Schwanhard, when the figures were formed, covered them with varnish, and then by his liquid corroded the glass around them; so that the figures, which remained smooth and clear, appeared when the varnish was removed, raised from a dim or dark ground. He perhaps adopted this method in order to render his invention different from the art known long before of cutting the figures on the glass as if engraven. Had he been able to investigate properly what accident presented to him, he might have enriched the arts with a discovery which gave great reputation to a chemist a hundred years after.

I mentioned this old method of etching in relief to our ingenious Klindworth, who possesses great dexterity in such arts, and requested him to try it. He drew a tree with oil varnish and colours on a plate of glass, applied the acid to the plate in the usual manner, and then removed the varnish. By these means a bright, smooth figure was produced upon a dim ground, which had a much better effect than those figures that are cut into the glass. I recommend this process, because I am of opinion that it may be brought to much greater perfection; and M. Renard, that celebrated artist of Strasburg, whose thermometers with glass scales, in which the degrees and numbers are etched, have met with universal approbation, was of the same opinion, when I mentioned the method to him while he resided here, banished from his home by the disturbances in his native country.

It is probable that Schwanhard and his scholars kept the preparation of this liquid a secret, as the receipt for that purpose was not made known till the year 1725, though it is possible that one older may be found in some of those books which treat on the arts. In the above-mentioned year, Dr. John George Weygand, from Goldingen in Courland, sent to the editor of a periodical work a receipt which had been written out for him by Dr. Matth. Pauli of Dresden, then deceased, who had etched, in this manner on glass, arms, landscapes, and figures of various kinds²²³. We find by it that a strong acid of nitre was used, which certainly disengages the acid of fluor-spar, though the vitriolic acid is commonly employed for that purpose²²⁴. That the Bohemian emerald or hesphorus, mentioned in the receipt, is green fluor-spar, cannot be doubted, and will appear still more certain from the history of this species of stone, as far as I am acquainted with it, which I shall here insert.

In the works of the old mineralogists, fluor-spar is either not mentioned, or is classed among their natural glasses and precious stones; and in those of the first systematic writers it is so mingled with quartz and calcareous and gypseous spars, that it is impossible to discover it. The old German miners, however, distinguished it so early as the sixteenth century, and called it fluss; because they used it to accelerate the fusion of ores that were difficult to be reduced to that state. Agricola, who first remarked this, changed the German name into fluor, an appellation, which, like many others, formed by him from German words, such for example as quarzum from quarz, spatum from spat, wismuthum, zincum, cobaltum, &c., became afterwards common. If a passage of the ancients can be quoted that seems to allude to fluor-spar, it is that of Theophrastus, where he says that there are certain stones which, when added to silver, copper, and iron ores, become fluid²²⁵. The first systematic writer who mentioned this kind of stone as a particular genus, was Cronstedt.

Besides being known by its metallurgic use, fluor-spar is known also by having the colours of some precious stones, so that it may be sold, or at least shown as such to those who are not expert judges; because the first time when heated in the dark it shines with a bluish-green lustre. It is possible that fluor-spar may have been among the number of that great variety of stones which the ancients, with much astonishment, tell us shone in the dark; though it is certain that the principal part of them were only light-magnets, as they are called, or such as retain for a certain period the light they have absorbed in the day-time. The observation, however, that fluor-spar emits light after it is heated, seems to have been first made when artificial phosphorus excited the inquiry of naturalists and chemists; and when they began to search in their own country for stones which, in the property of emitting light, might have a resemblance to the Bologna spar, made known about the year 1630. It is well known that the latter is prepared for that purpose by calcination. Stones of the like kind were sought for; and among these fluor-spar, which is not scarce in Germany.

In my opinion, the observation was made in the year 1676; for in that year Elsholz informed the members of the Society for investigating Nature, that he was acquainted with a phosphorus which had its light neither from the sun nor from fire, but which, when heated on a metal plate over glowing coals, shone with a bluish-white lustre; so that by strewing the powder of it over paper, one might form luminous writing. I doubt much whether this experiment was ever tried; at least I find no further account of it in the papers of the Society, nor in the re-publication of the above author’s first dissertation, which appeared in 1681²²⁶.

As far as I know, Kirchmaier, professor at Wittenberg, was the first who disclosed the secret, in the year 1679²²⁷. Both call this phosphorus the smaragdine; because the ancients speak much of luminous emeralds, and because green fluor-spar is often exhibited as an emerald. Kirchmaier calls this mineral also hesperus and vesperugo; and these names have been often given since to fluor-spar, as in the receipt before-mentioned for making a liquid to etch on glass. Kirchmaier’s information, however, must have been very little known; for the Jesuit Casatus, who, in 1684, wrote his Treatise on Fire, was not acquainted with it, as he has inserted only the words of Elsholz. This observation must have been new to Leibnitz himself, and to the Academy of Sciences at Berlin, in 1710; for the former then mentioned it to the Society as a philosophical novelty²²⁸.

I shall remark, in the last place, that the manufacturing of vessels and ornaments of every kind from solid fluor-spar was begun in Derbyshire in the year 1765²²⁹. The articles formed of it are in England called spar ornaments, and sometimes blue John. Many beautiful colours must, as is said, be brought forward by means of fire. But the heat must be applied with great caution; for fluor-spar, as is well known, by a strong and particularly a sudden heating, cracks, and loses its transparency. Since writing the above, I find that M. Raspe²³⁰ denies this bringing forward of colours by fire.

SOAP

That the first express mention of soap occurs in Pliny and Galen, and that the former declares it to be an invention of the Gauls, though he prefers the German to the Gallic soap²³¹, has already been remarked by many. Pliny says that soap²³² was made of tallow and ashes; that the best was made of goats’ tallow and the ashes of the beech-tree, and that there were two kinds of it, hard and soft. The author of a work on simple medicines, which is ascribed to Galen, but which however does not seem to have been written by that author, and of which only a Latin translation has been printed, speaks of soap being made by a mixture of oxen, goats’, or sheep’s tallow, and a lye of ashes strengthened with quicklime. He says the German soap was the purest, the fattest, and the best, and that the next in quality was the Gallic²³³. This account corresponds more exactly with the process used in Germany at present; whereas the French use mineral alkali, and instead of tallow, employ oil, which appears to be a later invention. Pliny in his description does not speak of quicklime; but as he mentions a mixture of goats’ tallow and quicklime a little before, it is probable that the use of the latter was then known at Rome. Gallic and German soap are often mentioned by later writers²³⁴, as well as by the Arabians, sometimes on account of their external use as a medicine, and sometimes on account of their use in washing clothes. The latter purpose is that for which soap is principally employed in modern times; but it does not seem to have been the cause of German soap being introduced at Rome. Washing there was the occupation of indigent scourers, who did not give themselves much trouble concerning foreign commodities. The German soap, with which, as Pliny tells us, the Germans coloured their hair red, was imported to Rome for the use of the fashionable Roman ladies and their gallants. There is no doubt that the pilæ Mattiacæ, which Martial recommends as a preventive of gray hair²³⁵; the caustica spuma with which the Germans dyed their hair²³⁶; and the Batavian froth or lather which the Romans employed for colouring theirs²³⁷, were German soap. It is probable that the Germans tinged it with those plants which were sent to Rome for dyeing the hair²³⁸; and according to the modern manner of speaking, it was more properly a kind of pomade than soap.

It appears that the Romans at first considered hair-soap as an ointment made from ashes; for we read in various passages of ancient authors, that the hair was dyed by means of ashes, or an ointment made of ashes and a certain kind of oil. It is however possible that they may have had such an ointment, which undoubtedly would be of a saponaceous nature, before they were acquainted with the German soap, or that they imitated the German pomade with different variations²³⁹.

As soap is everywhere used for washing at present, a question arises what substitutes were employed before it was invented. Those with which I am acquainted I shall mention and endeavour to illustrate. They are all still used, though not in general; and they are all of a soapy nature, or at least have the same effects as soap; so that we may say the ancients used soap without knowing it.

Our soap is produced by a mixture of lixivious salts and tallow, by which means the latter becomes soluble in water. The greater part of the dirt on our linen and clothes consists of oily perspiration or grease, or dust which that grease attracts, and which either cannot be washed out, or, but very imperfectly, by water alone. But if warm water, to which lixivious salts have in any manner been added, be taken, and if dirty cloth be rubbed in it, the greasy dirt unites with the salts, becomes saponaceous, and is so far soluble in water that it may be washed out. There are also natural juices which are of a soapy quality, in the state in which we find them, and which can be employed in the stead of artificial soap. Of this kind is the gall of animals and the sap of many plants. The former being less strong in its effects on account of its slimy nature, is used at present particularly for coloured stuffs, the dye of which is apt to fade. As far as I know, however, it was not employed by the ancients²⁴⁰, but it is certain that in washing they used saponaceous plants.

In the remotest periods it appears that clothes were cleaned by being rubbed or stamped upon in water, without the addition of any substance whatever. We are told by Homer, that Nausicaa and her attendants washed their clothes by treading upon them with their feet in pits, into which they had collected water²⁴¹. The epithet black, which the poet gives to the water, might induce one to conjecture that it had been mixed with ashes, which would convert it into a lye; but where were the ashes to be found? Had they brought them along with them, the bard, where he before enumerates everything that they carried with them, and even oil, would not have failed to mention them; and such a conjecture is rendered entirely groundless by his applying the same epithet to pure water, in other places, where nothing can be supposed to have coloured it²⁴². Water, when it stands in deep pits, reflects so few rays of light, that in a poetical sense it may very properly be called black.

We find however mention made at later periods of ashes, and a lye of ashes employed for washing; but I think very seldom, and I do not know how old the use of them may be. According to Julius Pollux, konia, mentioned by Aristophanes and Plato, was a substance used for washing; and he says expressly, that we are to understand by it a lye of ashes. This I mention for the sake of those, who, like me, place little confidence in the terms of art given in dictionaries. With the above lye, oil- and wine-jars were cleaned²⁴³; and it was employed also for washing the images of the gods²⁴⁴. The method of strengthening the lye by means of unslaked lime was known, at any rate, in the time of Paulus Ægineta; but it appears that the Romans were not acquainted with the salt itself, which is procured by dissolving common wood-ashes in water: I mean, they did not understand the art of producing it in a dry solid form, or of boiling potashes.

On the other hand, that fixed lixivious salt, the mineral which nature presents in many of the southern countries, was long known and used in washing. This was the nitrum, or, as the people of Attica pronounced it, the litrum, of the ancients, as has already been remarked by others²⁴⁵. It would however be worth the trouble to investigate the proofs still further. By examining them with more mineralogical and chemical knowledge than have hitherto been employed for that purpose, they might be further strengthened, and serve to illustrate many obscure passages. For my part, I have neither leisure nor room here to undertake such a task, though I have collected many observations relative to that subject. It is certain at any rate, that the ancients employed nitrum for washing, and it is evident from the testimony of various authors, that it was much used in the baths²⁴⁶.

That the people of Egypt, in the time of Pliny, made mineral alkali also from the ashes of some plants, we have reason to conclude, because he says that it was necessary to put the Egyptian nitre into vessels well-corked, else it became liquid. Natural alkali is never liable to do so, unless it be very much burnt; and as no reason is assigned for its assuming that form, we may believe that the Egyptian alkali was the strongly burnt ashes of those plants which are still used in Egypt for making salt, and perhaps the same with which the Spaniards were made acquainted by the Arabians, and which they cultivate for making soda.

Strabo speaks of an alkaline water in Armenia, which was used by the scourers for washing clothes²⁴⁷. Of this kind also must have been the lake Ascanius, which is mentioned by Aristotle²⁴⁸, Antigonus Carystius²⁴⁹, and Pliny²⁵⁰. It is worthy of remark, that the ancients made ointments of this mineral alkali and oil, but not hard soap, though by these means they approached nearer to the invention than the old Germans in their use of wood-ashes; for dry solid soap can be made with more ease from the mineral than the vegetable alkali; and when Hungarian, French, and German soap are of equal goodness, the last does more credit to the manufacturers because they cannot employ the mineral alkali. I shall here observe, that this alkali was used for washing by the Hebrews, and that it occurs in the sacred writings under the name of borith²⁵¹.

The cheapest however, and the most common article used for washing, was the urine of men and animals. When this excrement becomes old, the alkali disengages itself, which may be perceived by its fœtid smell; and such alkalised urine being warmed, and employed to wash greasy clothes, produces the same effects as the nitrum of the ancients. It is still used for the like purpose in our cloth manufactories.

To procure a supply of it, the ancient washers and scourers placed at the corners of the streets, vessels which they carried away after they had been filled by the passengers, who were at liberty to use them; and the practice of having such conveniences was certainly more decent than that of employing the walls of churches and other buildings, which the police of Dresden forbade some years ago, but with no effect. At Rome, that which at present spoils and renders filthy our noblest edifices, was converted to use. When clothes were washed, they were trod upon with the feet, as was the case in the cloth manufactories at Leeds, Halifax, and other places of England, where the urine was collected by servants, and sold by measure to the manufacturers under the name of old lant. On account of the disagreeable smell attending their employment, scourers at Rome were obliged to reside either in the suburbs or in some of the unfrequented streets²⁵².

My readers here will undoubtedly call to remembrance the source of taxation devised by the emperor Vespasian, who, as his historians tell us, urinæ vectigal commentus est²⁵³. It is not certainly known in what manner this impost was regulated. Did the emperor declare that article, which was not subterraneum rarius, to be a regale as a res derelicta, so that the scourers were obliged to pay him what he thought a reasonable sum proportioned to the benefit which they derived from it? Or was it imposed only as a poll-tax? For every tax upon anything indispensably necessary to all, is, to speak in the language of finance, the same as what is called a poll-tax, or a tax paid by every one who has a head. The latter conjecture is the most probable, especially as this tax continued two centuries, till the time of Anastasius, and as we read also of vectigal pro urina jumentorum et canum, which was exacted from every person who kept cattle. Vespasian therefore was not fortunate in the choice of a name for his tribute, which on that account must have been undoubtedly more detested. A poll-tax at present is called by those who do not speak favourably of it, the Turkish-tax, because the Turks impose it on all unbelievers. When it was introduced by Louis XIV. in 1695, he called it la capitation.

Of plants with a saponaceous juice, the ancients, at any rate, used one instead of soap; but it is difficult or rather impossible to define it. I shall not therefore content myself merely with transcribing the passages where it is mentioned, but I shall arrange whatever I can find respecting it in such a manner, as, according to my opinion, the names of plants ought to be explained in dictionaries.

Στρουθίον, Struthium, Latinis Herba lanaria, et Plinio etiam Radicula.

1. Est planta spinosa, Theophrastus, Plinius.

2. Grata aspectu, sed sine odore, Theophrastus, Plinius.

3. Folio oleæ, Plinius; vel papaveris Heraclei, Theophrastus.

4. Caule ferulaceo, tenui, lanuginoso, eduli, Plinius.

5. Radice magna, acri, medicinali, Plinius, Dioscorides; spumescente, Lucian.

6. Floret æstate, Theophrastus. Plinius; sed semen nullum, Plinius.

7. Nascitur saxosis et asperis locis, Plinius.

8. Sponte, præcipue in Asia Syriaque; trans Euphratem laudatissima; sativa ubique, Plinius.

9. Radix conditur ad lanas lavandas, Theophrastus, Plinius, Dioscorides, Columella, et alii.

10. Herba ovibus lac auget, Plinius.

The above is all that the ancients have told us respecting this plant. The information is indeed very scanty, and at the same time it is not altogether certain; but even if it were, it would be sufficient only to confute some conjectures, but not to establish the systematic name of the plant. I call the properties of it described to us uncertain: first, because I do not know whether Pliny did not mean to distinguish the wild plant from that which was cultivated, and many have understood as alluding to the former that which I have applied to both: secondly, because the words of Theophrastus, being in one passage evidently corrupted, will admit of various constructions; and because in another, on account of some exceptions, of which he speaks, they appear at least to me unintelligible: thirdly, because Pliny, who gives us the best account of it, is the only author who calls the struthium or soap-plant radicula, a name by which is rather to be understood a dye-plant of the same kind as madder. We have reason therefore to suspect that he has confounded the properties of the two plants, especially as the fourth property was ascribed by others to a Rubia, Asperula, or Galium, which was cultivated in Syria, and named often radicula Syriaca. On the other hand, this diminutive is very ill-suited to a root which Pliny himself calls large.

The words of that author, “tingenti, quicquid sit cum quo decoquatur,” have been by some explained as if he meant that the struthium was a dye-plant, though as a soapy plant it must have been destitute of colour; and they have hence deduced a proof that Pliny confounded the struthium with the radicula used in dyeing. On the other hand, Hardouin reads unguentis instead of tingenti. He assures us that he found the former in manuscripts, and is of opinion that the sap of the struthium was used also for ointments.

In my opinion, however, tingenti must be retained; and the meaning is that when cloth was to be dyed it was necessary to prepare it for that purpose by soaking it and washing it with the sap of this plant. This he expressly tells us himself; “tingentibus et radicula lanas præparat.” It is probable that the ancient dyers mixed their dye-liquors with the juice of the struthium, for the same purpose as bran and the seeds of fenugreek are added to dye-liquors at present; that is, to render them thicker and more slimy, in order that the colouring particles may be longer and more equally suspended in or diffused through them²⁵⁴. The words quidquid sit cum quo decoquatur will now become intelligible. Whatever may be employed for dyeing, says the author, the addition of the juice of the struthium is serviceable.