Kitabı oku: «A History of Inventions, Discoveries, and Origins, Volume I (of 2)», sayfa 33

This information is in some measure confirmed by Melzer¹⁴⁸⁹, who says that the mines of Schneeberg, which were first discovered in the middle of the fifteenth century, had declined so much towards the middle of the sixteenth, that it was impossible to get any profit by them till the year 1550, when a greater advantage arose from the new method of using cobalt. About this period a contract was entered into with the Dutch, who agreed to take the roasted cobalt at a certain price. Lehmann¹⁴⁹⁰ says, but without adducing any proofs, that a manufactory for making blue glass was erected by Sebastian Preussler, between Platten and Eybenstock, so early as 1571. Rossler¹⁴⁹¹, who died in 1673, in the seventy-sixth year of his age, gives us to understand that a century and a half before his time, cobalt was procured and sold as zaffer; but that the colour-mills in the country had been established only about sixty years. I conjecture therefore that the roasted cobalt, to which sand was added, in order that the nature of it might be better concealed, and the further preparation of it rendered more difficult, was given up to the Dutch, even so early as the beginning of the sixteenth century¹⁴⁹², and that these people by melting it anew, or at any rate by pounding it finer, derived the greatest benefit from it long before the Saxons themselves constructed mills according to the model of those used in Holland. At present many Dutchmen grind German cobalt with very great advantage¹⁴⁹³.

It appears that this new colour was not made known in books till a late period. Agricola was not acquainted with the blue glass, nor is zaffera mentioned either by him or Mathesius. Albin also, who indeed derived the greater part of his information from these two writers, says not a word respecting it; but he tells us that bismuth when put in vessels grew together again¹⁴⁹⁴. He seems therefore to allude to cobalt roasted and mixed with sand, which when packed up becomes a solid body, whereas bismuth which has been purified by roasting can never assume that state. Vanuccio Biringoccio, the oldest writer in whose works I have as yet observed the name zaffera, describes its use for painting glass, and calls it a heavy mineral, without defining it any further. Cardan¹⁴⁹⁵ gives the name of zaffera to an earth which colours glass blue. Cæsalpin says it is a stone¹⁴⁹⁶; and Julius Scaliger must have known as little of it, else he would have mentioned it in his Exercitations on Cardan. Porta, who employed great diligence to acquire knowledge of this kind, often mentions zaphara figlinorum, without telling us what it is; but he describes how it must be melted, poured into water, pounded, sifted, and reduced into a fine powder in order to be employed for making artificial precious stones¹⁴⁹⁷. Neri, who wrote about the year 1609¹⁴⁹⁸, knew nothing more of it; and Merret, the commentator on Neri, who lived in the middle of the sixteenth century¹⁴⁹⁹, confesses that he knew not what zaffera was, but he believed that it was a new German invention, at least that it was brought from Germany, and that it seemed to him to be made from copper and sand, with the addition perhaps of calamine. The first person who properly explained zaffera in his writings, and gave a correct account of the method of preparing it, is, in my opinion, Kunkel¹⁵⁰⁰ in his annotations on Neri and Merret. That writer says, zaffera was by the miners called zafloer, and that sand was mixed with it only that the powder-blue used by women for linen, and by painters called blue smalt, might not be imitated in other countries.

Rosler says the Bohemian cobalt is not so good as that of Misnia, and that its colour is more like that of ashes. That Brandt, a member of the Council of Mines in Sweden, first asserted that cobalt contained a peculiar kind of metal, must be so well known to mineralogists, that it scarcely deserves to be mentioned¹⁵⁰¹.

TURKEYS

That these fowls, which at present are everywhere common, were brought to us from a different part of the world, is, I believe, generally admitted; but respecting their original country, and the time when they were first introduced into Europe, there is much difference of opinion among those who in later times have made researches on that subject¹⁵⁰². I shall therefore compare what has been advanced on both sides with what I have remarked myself, and submit my decision to the judgement of the reader.

The question, whether turkeys or turkey-fowls were known to the Greeks and the Romans, will depend upon defining what those fowls were to which they gave the name of meleagrides and gallinæ Africanæ; for in the whole ornithology of the ancients, there are no other kind that can occasion doubt. It has however been justly remarked by Perrault and others, that every thing which we find related by the ancients of the meleagrides can be applied only to the pintado or Guinea fowl (Numida meleagris, Linn.), and not to the turkey; and that the gallinæ Africanæ were only a variety of the former, or a species that approached nearly to them. Their spots, disposed in such a manner as if formed by drops, on account of which, in modern times, they have been called pintados and pientades, and the marks on the feathers of the wings, accord perfectly with the description given of them by Clytus, the scholar of Aristotle¹⁵⁰³; though in northern countries, some Guinea fowls are found, the colour of which is more mixed with white. But this is a variation not uncommon among birds in general when removed from their native country, as is proved by the white peacocks, which were first observed in Norway. The coloured hood of thick skin which covers the head has also been accurately described by Clytus, as well as the coloured fleshy excrescence on the bill (palearia carunculacea). In size the meleagrides were like our largest common fowls, which is true also of the pintado; and we must acknowledge with Clytus, that its naked head is too small in proportion to the body. The figure of the pintado, like that of the partridge, and its drooping tail, correspond equally well with the epithet gibberæ, especially as the position of its feathers occasions its back to appear elevated or bent upwards. The feet are like those of the domestic fowl, but they are destitute of the spurs with which those of the latter are furnished; and the pintado lays spotted eggs, as described by Aristotle; but these, by the manner in which the fowls are reared in Europe, are liable to variations. It deserves to be remarked above all, that both sexes of the meleagrides are so like, that they can scarcely be distinguished; and this circumstance alone is sufficient to confute those who pretend that the meleagrides were our turkeys. Had that been the case, it is impossible that Clytus in his description, which seems to have been drawn up with great care, should have omitted the proud and ridiculous gestures of the turkey-cock when he struts about with his tail spread out like a fan, or thrown into a circular form, and his wings trailing on the ground, or the long excrescence that hangs down from his bill, and the tuft of black hair on his breast. The unpleasant cry, and the unsocial disposition of the meleagrides, are observed in the Guinea fowls, which, as the ancients justly remarked, frequent rivers and marshes, where turkeys on the other hand never thrive.

The ancients assure us that the native country of the meleagrides was Africa¹⁵⁰⁴, where the Guinea fowls are still found in a wild state, but where our turkeys were never seen wild. When writers however mention places not in Africa, to which the former were brought, we are not to suppose that they were carried thither directly from Africa. The difference which Columella and Pliny¹⁵⁰⁵ make between the meleagrides and gallinæ Africanæ is so trifling, as to imply only a variety of the species; and the opinion of Pallas, who has occasionally collected a number of important observations which may serve to explain the natural history of the ancients, is highly probable, that we are to understand under it the Numida mitrata, which he has described. The red crest which the last-mentioned bird always has, and which almost alone distinguishes it from the common Guinea fowl, seems fully to prove this opinion¹⁵⁰⁶. I shall here take occasion to remark, that Buffon erroneously affirms that the Guinea fowls, which were transmitted from the Greeks and the Romans, became extinct in Europe in the middle ages; for we find mention made of them in English writers, under the name of Aves Africanæ, Afræ, so early as about the year 1277¹⁵⁰⁷.

That the ancients were not acquainted with our turkeys is still further confirmed by the testimony of various historians and travellers, who assure us in the first place, that these birds are still wild in America; secondly, that they were brought to us from that country; and thirdly, that before the discovery of the New World they were not known in Europe. Besides, we are enabled, from the information which they give us, to see how and when these animals were conveyed to those countries where they at present are reared as domestic fowls; and these proofs appear to me so strong, that I conclude Barrington asserted the contrary, that he might obtain assent not so much by the force of truth as by advancing absurdities. All animals multiply more easily, and become larger, stronger, and more fruitful in those places which nature has assigned to them for a residence, that is, where they originally lived wild; and this observation seems to hold good in regard to the turkeys in America. It is indeed probable that the number of wild animals will always decrease in proportion as countries are peopled, and as woods are cut down and deserts cultivated; it is probable also, that at last no wild animals will be left, as has been the case with sheep, oxen and horses, which have all long ago been brought into a state of slavery by man. The testimony therefore of those who first visited America, and who found there wild turkeys, deserves the greater attention.

The first author in whom I find mention of them is Oviedo, who wrote about the year 1525¹⁵⁰⁸. He has described them minutely with that curiosity and attention which new objects generally excite; and as he was acquainted with no name for these animals, till then unknown to the Europeans, he gave them that which he thought best suited to their figure and shape. He calls them a kind of peacocks, and he relates that even then, on account of their utility, and the excellent taste of their flesh, they were not only reared and domesticated by the Europeans in New Spain, where they were first found, but that they were carried also to New Castille, and to the West India islands. The other fowls likewise which he describes we have without doubt procured from America, such for example as the Crax alector¹⁵⁰⁹. Lopez de Gomara, whose book was printed in 1553, makes use of the name gallopavo; and says that the animal resembles in shape the peacock and the domestic cock; and that of all the fowls in New Spain its flesh is the most delicious¹⁵¹⁰. In the year 1584 wild turkeys were found in Virginia¹⁵¹¹. René de Laudonniere found them on his landing in North America in 1564¹⁵¹². Fernandez also reckons them among the birds of Mexico; and takes notice of the difference between those that were wild and those which had been tamed¹⁵¹³. Pedro de Ciesa saw them on the isthmus of Darien¹⁵¹⁴, and Dampier in Yucatan¹⁵¹⁵. Besides the testimony of many other later travellers which have been already quoted by Buffon, and which I shall not here repeat, the accounts of Kalm and Smyth in particular deserve to be noticed. The former, who visited Pennsylvania in 1784, says, “The wild turkeys run about here in the woods. Their wildness excepted, they are in nothing different from ours, but in being generally a little larger, and in having redder flesh, which is, however, superior in taste. When any one finds their eggs in the woods, and places them under a tame hen to be hatched, the young, for the most part, become tame also; but when they grow up they make their escape. On this account people cut their wings before they are a year old. These wild turkeys, when tamed, are much more mischievous than those tamed by nature¹⁵¹⁶.” Smyth assures us that wild turkeys are so abundant in the uncultivated country behind Virginia, and the southern provinces, that they may be found in flocks of more than five thousand¹⁵¹⁷.

These testimonies, in my opinion, are sufficiently strong and numerous to convince any naturalist that America is the native country of these fowls; but their weight will be still increased if we add the accounts given us when and how they were gradually dispersed throughout other countries. Had they been brought from Asia or Africa some centuries ago, they must have been long common in Italy, and would have been carried thence over all Europe. We, however, do not find that they were known in that country before the discovery of America. It is certain that there were none of them there at the time when Peter de Crescentio wrote, that is to say, in the thirteenth century¹⁵¹⁸; else he would not have omitted to mention them where he describes the method of rearing all domestic fowls, and even peacocks and partridges. The earliest account of them in Italy is contained in an ordinance issued by the magistrates of Venice, in 1557, for repressing luxury, and in which those tables at which they were allowed are particularised. About the year 1570 Bartolomeo Scappi, cook to pope Pius V., gave in his book on cookery several receipts for dressing these expensive and much-esteemed fowls¹⁵¹⁹. That they were scarce at this period appears from its being remarked that the first turkeys brought to Bologna were some that had been given as a present to the family of Buonocompagni, from which Gregory XII., who at that time filled the papal chair, was descended.

That these fowls were not known in England in the beginning of the sixteenth century, is very probable; as they are not mentioned in the particular description of a grand entertainment given by archbishop Nevil¹⁵²⁰; nor in the regulations made by Henry VIII. respecting his household, in which all fowls used in the royal kitchen are named¹⁵²¹. They were, however, introduced into that country about the above period; some say in the year 1524; others, in 1530; and some, in 1532¹⁵²². We know, at any rate, that young turkeys were served up at a great banquet in 1555¹⁵²³; and about 1585 they were commonly reckoned among the number of delicate dishes¹⁵²⁴.

According to the account of some writers, turkeys must have been known much earlier in France; but on strict examination no proofs of this can be found. The earliest period assigned for their introduction into that country is given by Beguillet¹⁵²⁵, who confidently asserts that they were brought to Dijon under the reign of Philip the Bold, about the year 1385. Had this French author quoted his authority, we might have discovered what gave rise to his mistake; but as he has not, one cannot help suspecting that the whole account is a fiction of his own. De la Mare also is in an error when he relates that the first turkeys in France were those which Jaques Cœur, the well-known treasurer to Charles VII., brought with him from the Levant, and kept on his estate in Gatinois, after he had received the king’s permission to return to the kingdom. This Cœur, however, who was banished in 1450, never returned, but died in the island of Chio in the year 1456¹⁵²⁶. Equally false is the account given by Bouche in his History of Provence, that René, or Renatus, king of Naples and duke of Anjou, first brought turkeys into the kingdom, and reared them in abundance at Rosset¹⁵²⁷. This author gives as his authority the oral tradition of the neighbourhood, which certainly cannot be put in competition with testimony of a more authentic nature. Another Bouche¹⁵²⁸, who a few years ago wrote also a History of Provence, and who has collected many things that do honour to Renatus, makes no mention of this service, though he could not be ignorant of what had been before related by his namesake. Had these fowls been known so early as the time of that monarch, who died in 1480, it is impossible that they could have been so scarce in France as they really were above a hundred years after. The assertion, often repeated, but never indeed proved, that they were first brought to France by Philip de Chabot, admiral under Francis I., is much more probable. Chabot died in 1543; and what Scaliger says, that in 1540 some turkeys were still remaining in France, may be considered as alluding to the above circumstance. This much however is certain, that Gyllius, who died in 1555, gave soon after the first scientific description of them, which has been inserted both by Gesner and Aldrovandus in their works on ornithology. The same year the first figure of them was published by Bellon. About the same time they were described also by La Bruyere-Champier, who expressly remarks that they had a few years before been brought to France from the Indian islands discovered by the Portuguese and the Spaniards¹⁵²⁹. How then could Barrington assert that this Frenchman meant the East and not the West Indies? They must, however, have been a long time scarce in France; for, in the year 1566, when Charles IX. passed through Amiens, the magistrates of that place did not disdain to send him, among other presents, twelve turkeys¹⁵³⁰. This information seems to agree with the account often quoted, that the first turkeys were served up, as a great rarity, at the wedding dinner of that monarch in the year 1570¹⁵³¹; but it seems the breed of these fowls was not very common under Charles IX.; for they are not named in the ordinances of 1563 and 1567, in which all other fowls are mentioned. In the year 1603, Henry IV. caused higglers to be punished who carried away turkeys from the country villages without paying for them, under a pretence that they were for the use of the queen¹⁵³². I shall here also remark, that I can nowhere find that the Jesuits are entitled to the merit of having introduced these fowls into France¹⁵³³.

As these American fowls must have been carried to Germany through other lands, we cannot expect to find them in that country at an earlier period. Gesner, who published his Ornithology in 1555, seems not even to have seen them. We are, however, assured by several authors, such as B. Heresbach¹⁵³⁴, Colerus¹⁵³⁵ and others, that turkeys were brought to Germany so early as 1530; and in the same year carried to Bohemia and Silesia¹⁵³⁶. Respecting the northern countries, I know only, on the authority of Pontoppidan, that they had been in Denmark two hundred years before his time.

As these fowls are found at present both in Asia and Africa, it may be worth while to inquire at what period they were carried thither, especially as these quarters of the world have been by some considered as their native countries. In China there are no other turkeys than those which have been introduced from other parts, as we are expressly assured by Du Halde, though he erroneously adds that they were quite common in the East Indies. They were carried to Persia by the Armenians and other trading people, and to Batavia by the Dutch¹⁵³⁷. In the time of Chardin they were so scarce in Persia that they were kept in the Emperor’s menagerie¹⁵³⁸. In the kingdom of Congo, on the Gold Coast, and at Senegal, there are none but those belonging to the European factories. According to Father de Bourzes there are none of them in the kingdom of Madura; and we are told by Dampier that this is the case in the island of Mindanao. Prosper Alpinus also gives the same account in regard to Nubia and Egypt; and Gemelli Carreri says there is none of them in the Philippines; though I agree with Buffon in laying very little stress upon the Travels known under that name, which we have reason to suppose not genuine.

It is worthy of remark, that Cavendish found a great number of turkeys in the island of St. Helena so early as the year 1588; and Barrington misapplies this circumstance to prove that these fowls did not come from America. It is, however, very doubtful whether Cavendish really meant our turkeys, as he says, “Guiney cocks, which we call turkeys¹⁵³⁹;” for the first name belongs to what are at present called pintados; and it is therefore uncertain which kind ought here to be understood. But even allowing that they were turkeys, is it improbable that they should be on an island which had often been visited by the Portuguese? The account of De la Croix is of as little weight; for he says that in the woods of Madagascar there are many coqs d’Inde¹⁵⁴⁰. De la Croix published his book in 1688, at which time there were in South America wild horses and wild cattle. Does this, therefore, invalidate the certainty of these animals being carried thither from Europe?

I intended to enter into a critical examination of those grounds upon which Barrington endeavours to prove that turkeys were originally brought from Africa; but on reading over his essay once more, I find the greater part of his arguments are sufficiently refuted by what I have proved from the most authentic testimony; and nothing now remains but to add a few observations. Barrington considers it improbable that these fowls should be so soon spread all over Europe, as Cortez first visited Mexico in 1519, subdued the capital in 1521, and returned to Spain in 1527. To me, however, it does not appear incredible; for I could prove by several instances, that the curiosity excited by the most remarkable American productions soon became general. Those, for example, who take the trouble to inquire into the history of maize or Turkish corn will make the same remark; though it is a truth fully established that we procure that grain from America. How soon did tobacco become common! In the year 1599 the seeds were brought to Portugal; and in the beginning of the seventeenth century it began to be cultivated in the East Indies. When Barrington asserts that these fowls were carried to America by the Europeans, in the same manner as horses and cattle, this argument may be turned against himself; for he must doubtless find it equally improbable that they should so soon become common, numerous and wild, in the New World, as they must have been according to the authorities above quoted.

As many fat turkeys were purchased yearly in Languedoc and sent to Spain in the time of cardinal Perron¹⁵⁴¹, it is thence concluded that these fowls were not brought to France through the latter. Perron died in 1620. At that period turkeys were very common; and whoever is acquainted with the industry of the Spaniards will not find it strange that the French should begin earlier to make the rearing of these animals an employment. How falsely should we reason, were we to say that it is impossible the English and French should procure the best wool from Spain, because the Spaniards purchase the best cloth from the French and the English!

One proof by which Barrington endeavours to show that turkeys were esteemed so early as the fifteenth century is very singular. He quotes from Leland’s Itinerary that capons of Grease were served up at an entertainment, under Edward IV., in 1467. The passage alluded to I cannot find; but an author must be very self-sufficient and bold indeed, to convert capons of Grease into capons of Greece, and to pretend that these were turkeys¹⁵⁴².

What, however, most excites my surprise is, that the name of these fowls even should be assumed by this writer as a ground for his assertion. Had they, says he, been brought from America, they would have been called American or West Indian fowls; as if new objects had names given to them always with reflection. Names are often bestowed upon objects before it is known what they are or whence they are procured. Ray, Minshew¹⁵⁴³, and others have been induced by the name turkey-fowls to consider Turkey as their original country; but whoever is versed in researches of this kind must know that new foreign articles are often called Turkish, Italian, or Spanish. Is Turkey the original country of maize? or is Italy the original country of these birds, because they have been sometimes called Italian fowls? Even allowing that turkeys had acquired their German name (kalekuter) from Calicut, this, at any rate, would prove nothing further than that it was once falsely believed that these animals were brought from Calicut to Europe: but I suspect that the appellation kalekuter, as well as the names truthenne, putjen, and puten, were formed from their cry. Chardin offers a conjecture which is not altogether to be neglected. That traveller thinks that these fowls were at first considered as a species of the domestic fowl, and that they were called Indian, because the largest domestic fowls are produced in that country.