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

With as little certainty can it be determined what our forefathers meant by the words vares, varii, vairus, vajus, varus, vayrus, veyrus or the vair of the French, and under griseum and grisum. That they belong to costly kinds of fur is universally admitted. Sometimes varium and griseum appear to be the same; and sometimes the former seems to be more valuable than the latter. That the former was spotted, or parti-coloured, is apparently announced by the name; for both the leopard and panther are by Pliny called variæ. What in heraldry is named by the French vair, and the Germans eisenhütlein, vellus varium, and which is considered by the former as the skin of an animal gray on the back and white on the belly773, alludes to this also. Sometimes, however, it seems to signify a fur dress composed of differently-coloured pieces of fur sewed together. Most writers are of opinion that it means grauwerk, petit-gris, vech, veh, vech, vehwammen, also the squirrel; and there is certainly a species of that animal which might justify the name varius, as its skin is at present employed for variegated bordering or trimming; but I do not know whether grauwerk774 could be so dear as varium is said to have been, as it is among the productions of Europe, though the best at present comes from Siberia. The word veeh is derived, as Frisch says, from the Italian vaio; the latter, according to Muratori775, is formed from varius, and even at present a dress lined with fur is called roba vaja.

Cirogillinæ pelles, named by the council of Paris in the year 1212, were rabbit skins776. Rabbit warrens, so early as the thirteenth century, were not scarce in England; for in a letter of grace respecting the forests, in 1215, every proprietor was permitted to establish them on his own lands777.

By the term cattinæ pelles778, which are also often named, must undoubtedly be understood cats’ skins. In France, in the twelfth century, the skins of native animals were considered as of little value; but the Spanish and Italian were highly prized. The skins of the black fox, which at present are the dearest kind of furs, as a single one in Russia is often sold for six hundred and even a thousand roubles, occur in the thirteenth century, among the wares which were sent from the most northern countries to Europe779; and without doubt these were meant by Damiani in the passage above quoted780.

Clothing made of the beaver skin occurs much earlier. It seems to be mentioned by Claudian781 in the fourth century; and it is spoken of by Ambrosius782, who lived at the same period. Sidonius Apollinaris, in the fifth century, called those who wore it castorinati. The scholiast of Juvenal, who indeed belongs to an unknown but much later period, has also pelles bebrinæ or beverinæ. As the ermine was called the Pontic mouse, the beaver was named the Pontic dog.

I however firmly believe that this castor clothing was no more fur clothing, than our beaver hats are fur hats. At that time the hair was spun and wove; and Claudian, in my opinion, speaks of a worn-out beaver dress, which had nothing more left of that valuable fur but the name. This method of manufacturing beavers’ hair seems not to have been known in the time of Pliny; for though he speaks much of the castor, and mentions pellis fibrina783 three times, he says nothing in regard to manufacturing the hair, or to beaver fur. As attempts, however, had then been made to manufacture the fur of the hare, it is probable that beaver hair began to be worn soon after. Isidorus, who lived nearly about that period, as he died in 636, reckons beaver hair, which he calls fibrinum, among the materials employed for making cloth784; and where he enumerates the different kinds of cloth, he mentions also vestis fibrina, and says that the warp was of beaver, and the woof of goats’ hair, perhaps the so-called camel hair785. An upper garment of this cloth was worn by the emperor Nicephorus II. Phocas, at his coronation in the year 963, which undoubtedly was not a castor pelisse; because fur clothing, as I shall soon prove, was not fashionable at the court of the Greek emperors786.

It deserves here to be remarked, that furs began to be dyed so early as the twelfth century; and it appears that the colour was chiefly red, for we find pelles rubricatæ arietum, that is, sheep-skins dyed red; but Du Cange thinks he can prove that the skins of the marten and ermine were dyed of the same colour. This I can believe in regard to the ermine; but to dye the dark fur of the marten and sable would, in my opinion, be hardly possible. St. Bernard787 says, that such red dyed leather in the twelfth century was called gulæ, which, with Hermin engolé of the old poets, seems to signify the same thing, ermine skins dyed red.

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

Charlemagne, however, wore in winter a pelisse which covered his shoulders and breast; but being an enemy to all foreign dress, he employed only the furs of his native country; and, according to the statement of some manuscripts, otter skins alone788. It nevertheless appears that the costly oriental furs were then known at his court; for having gone out hunting with his suite, on a cold rainy holiday, he himself wore only a sheep’s skin; but the dresses of his attendants, who had become acquainted in Italy with the valuable articles in which the Venetians then dealt, consisted of foreign cloth and furs. These, when thoroughly drenched and dried at the fire, crumbled to pieces. The emperor then caused his sheep’s skin when dried to be rubbed, and showing it to his courtiers ridiculed them on their foreign fur dresses, which though expensive were of little use789. The imperial princesses, however, on holidays wore dresses ornamented with precious stones, gold, silver and silk, and also foreign furs; at any rate the princess Berta had a valuable mantle or tippet of ermine, which Alcuin calls murina790.

Fur gloves were at that time usual also. The monks, at least, in winter wore gloves of sheep’s skin, which were called muffulæ; whereas the summer gloves were named wanti791.

In the Welsh laws of Hywel Dda, who reigned in the tenth century, the skin of an ox, a deer, a fox, a wolf and an otter, are estimated at the same price, that is, eight times as dear as the skin of a sheep or a goat. The skin of a white weazle was eleven times as dear, that of a marten twenty-four times, and that of a beaver one hundred and twenty792.

In the year 1001 the emperor Otto III. sent an ambassador to Constantinople, whose attendants were clothed in costly furs793. Adam of Bremen, who lived in the same century, says, in his description of the countries bordering on Poland and Russia, that from these districts were procured those costly furs which were so eagerly purchased by the luxurious794. When Godfrey of Bouillon, in the year 1096, paid a visit to the emperor Alexius at Constantinople, what the latter chiefly admired was the rich and costly dresses of the Europeans bordered with furs795. In the beginning of the twelfth century the canons of a cathedral suffered themselves to be corrupted by beautiful furs796. The use of them, however, was forbidden to the clergy at one of the councils. According to that of London, in 1127, the abbesses and nuns were to wear those only made of lamb-skins and cat-skins797. In the year 1187, when the Christians were beaten near Tiberias, count Raimond having treacherously gone over to the Turks, the latter found among the plunder of the Christian camp a complete assortment of furs798. At the end of the twelfth century, Gottfried or Gaufred, prior of Vigeois, complained that no one would any longer wear sheep-skins and fox-skins, which before had been worn by barons and the principal clergy799.

We however find that princes sometimes endeavoured by the most effective means to restrain this magnificence. When Philip II. of France and Richard I. of England, about the end of the twelfth century, undertook a crusade to the Holy Land, they resolved that neither of them should wear ermine, sable, or other costly furs800. It appears that a similar resolution was adopted by St. Louis (Louis IX.) in the following century; for the historians, speaking of his crusade, expressly say that he avoided all magnificence, and wore no costly furs801. In the year 1336, in the reign of Edward III., king of England, when foreign articles imported into the kingdom began to be taxed, it was enacted, that no person whose yearly income did not amount to a hundred pounds should wear furs, under the penalty of losing them802.

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

When one considers how much the use of fur dresses was spread all over Europe, it must excite astonishment that they were not introduced at the court of Byzantium. No traces of them are to be found in any of the Byzantine historians; not even in that work in which the emperor Constantine describes the whole ceremonial of his court, and in which dresses of various kinds are named, as Reiske has already remarked803. Furs are nowhere represented on Grecian statues, in paintings, or other works of art; and it will be seen in the passages quoted, that in the magnificence which the European princes displayed in the time of the crusades at the court of Constantinople, nothing attracted so much attention as the different kinds of fur dresses. This seems the more astonishing, as a great trade was carried on at that time between Constantinople and those countries from which these wares were sent to Europe.

Over one of the gates of Milan is an image cut out in stone of the twelfth century, representing an emperor whose mantle is ornamented with small triangular patches of fur. Flamma believed that this carving was intended to represent one of the Greek emperors; but Giulini justly remarks, in opposition to this opinion, that furs never occur in any of the Greek sculpture. Besides, that image was evidently formed to ridicule the emperor, as is proved by the hideous monster seated close to him. But at that time the Milanese certainly had no cause to offend the Greek emperor, with whom they were in alliance; and Giulini has proved, in a very satisfactory manner, that the Milanese erected this image to ridicule the emperor Frederick I., who was their bitterest enemy804. On another image at Milan, cut out in stone, of the thirteenth century, which represents the emperor of Germany on his throne, surrounded by the electors, the latter have small mantles, which are ornamented with triangular patches of fur of the same kind805.

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

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

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

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

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

STEEL

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

It is certain that the invention of steel is of very great antiquity. In the Old Testament, however, the mention of it is very doubtful, according to Professor Tychsen, whose remarks on this subject I subjoin in a note below806; but it appears that it was used as early as the time of Homer, and that the Greeks gave to it different names, one of the most common of which was stomoma, though it seems certain that this word did not so much denote steel itself as the steeled part of an instrument, or the operation of steeling. The name chalybs was given to steel from the Chalybes, a people on the southern shore of the Pontus Euxinus, between Colchis and Paphlagonia, who had considerable mines, and in particular iron and steel works: though others, on the contrary, derive the name of the people from the principal article of their commerce. This derivation appears the more probable, as Justin says that a river of Spain, on which there were steel works, was named Chalybs, but at a much later period. Some also have ascribed to the Chalybes the invention of iron, which however is much older.

But it seems to be less known that adamas also at first denoted steel. This is expressly said by Hesychius, and many epithets derived from adamas are applied to articles made of steel or of iron. Among these may be mentioned the helmet of Hercules, in Hesiod807, and the so-called adamantine chains, gates, and bars of the poets, which in dictionaries are always explained as consisting of precious stones.

It was not till a late period that this word was applied to the most costly of all the precious stones. In this sense it occurs neither in Homer, Hesiod, Herodotus, Orpheus, nor Dioscorides, though the first of these writers often describes various kinds of valuable ornaments. Goguet and others thence conclude that the diamond was not then known. At present I cannot enter into the history of this stone; but I must own, that I consider the knowledge of it to be older, and suspect that it was first introduced under another name, and is mentioned by Orpheus and some others under that of jasper (jaspis). This poet compares his jaspis to rock crystal, and says that it kindles fire in the same manner. That he knew how to use rock crystal as a burning-glass, he expressly tells us himself; but he certainly could not procure a diamond of such a size as to be able to burn with it. From its vitreous nature however he conjectured, and very properly, that it might be employed for that purpose. He calls the jaspis transparent, compares it to glass, and says that it had that sky colour which at present is named color hyalinus. This is probably the reason why Dioscorides and others call some kinds of jasper transparent and sky-coloured. The jaspis in the Revelation of St. John808, described as a costly transparent crystalline kind of stone, was perhaps our diamond, which afterwards was everywhere distinguished by that name.

The Romans borrowed from the Greeks the word chalybs; and in consequence of a passage in Pliny809, many believe that they gave also to steel the name of acies, from which the Italians made their acciajo, and the French their acier. The word acies, however, denoted properly the steeled or cutting part only of an instrument. From this, in later times, was formed aciarium, for the steel which gave the instrument its sharpness, and also aciare to steel810.

At present there are two methods of making steel; the first of which is by fusion either from iron-stone or raw iron, and the second by cementation. I have never found in the works of the ancients any traces of steel prepared by cementation; nor am I acquainted with the antiquity of that process, though the ancients, without knowing it, employed it for brass. Spielman says811, that Pliny in one part calls it tostio; but this word occurs neither in Pliny nor in any ancient writer. It is however possible that the word torrere may somewhere signify cementation, but I have not yet met with an instance of it.

The preparation however by fusion, as practised by the Chalybes, has been twice described by Aristotle; but as I have already given in another work812 everything I was able to collect towards an explanation of these passages, I shall not here repeat it. I shall only remark, that the steel of the ancients, in consequence of not being cemented, suffered itself to be hammered, and was not nearly so brittle as the hardest with which we are acquainted at present.

On the other hand, the singular method of preparing steel employed by the Celtiberians, in Spain, deserves to be here described. According to the account of Diodorus813 and Plutarch814, the iron was buried in the earth, and left in that situation till the greater part of it was converted into rust. What remained, without being oxydized, was afterwards forged and made into weapons, and particularly swords, with which they could cut asunder bones, shields, and helmets. However improbable this may appear, it is nevertheless the process still used in Japan; and Swedenborg has introduced it among the different methods of making steel815.

The art of hardening steel by immersing it suddenly, when red-hot, in cold water, is very old816. Homer says, that when Ulysses bored out the eye of Polyphemus with a burning stake, it hissed in the same manner as water when the smith immerses in it a piece of red-hot iron, in order to harden it817. Sophocles uses the comparison of being hardened like immersed iron818; and Salmasius819 quotes a work of an old Greek chemist, who treats on the method of hardening iron in India. It is also a very ancient opinion, that the hardening depends chiefly on the nature of the water. Many rivers and wells were therefore in great reputation, so that steel works were often erected near them, though at a considerable distance from the mines. Instances of this may be found in Pliny820 and in Justin821. The more delicate articles of iron were not quenched in water, but in oil.

An opinion, it is well known, long prevailed, that there were various fluids and mixtures which communicate to steel different degrees of hardness, and every artist thought he knew a peculiar hardening kind of water, the preparation of which he kept a secret. This notion is by some still maintained822; because there are often found stones cut by the ancients, which the moderns, on account of their hardness, as is believed, have seldom ventured to touch. Of this kind is the hardest porphyry. There are people who still endeavour to find out that hardening kind of water, in which the ancients prepared their tools for cutting such stones. According to Vasari823, that water was actually discovered by the archduke Cosmo, in the year 1555. Among a large collection of stones he had a block of porphyry, from which he wished a bason to be made for a well, but was told by the most experienced artists that it was impossible. On this, says Vasari, in order to render the work possible, he prepared from certain herbs, which he does not name, a water wherein the red-hot tools were quenched, and by these means so hardened, that they were capable of cutting porphyry. With tools tempered in this manner the artist Francesco del Tadda not only made the required bason, but various other curious articles824.

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

After Tadda’s death, the art of cutting porphyry came to Raphael Curradi, who communicated to Dominico Corsi this secret, which was afterwards employed by Cosimo Silvestrini825. I, however, agree in opinion with Winkelman and Fiorillo, our learned connoisseur in the arts, that the method of working porphyry was known in every age, even in the most barbarous, though artists, no doubt, preferred working on other stones which were less brittle and hard. We know however from the latest researches, that all the kinds of hardening water hitherto invented are in nothing superior to common water; and that in hardening more depends on the nature of the steel, or rather on the degree of heat, than on the water; although it is true that the workman does right when he adds to the water a thin cake of grease, or pours over it hot oil, through which the steel must necessarily pass before it enters the water, for by these means it is prevented from acquiring cracks and flaws.