Kitabı oku: «A History of Inventions, Discoveries, and Origins, Volume II (of 2)», sayfa 36
I must still believe that the first certain mention of saltpetre will be found in the oldest account of the preparation of gunpowder, which, in my opinion, became known in Europe in the thirteenth century, about the same time that the use of the Greek fire, of which there were many kinds, began to be lost. Among the oldest information on this subject is that found in the above-quoted work of Albertus Magnus, and the writings of Roger Bacon, who died in 1278. It is doubted whether the first-mentioned treatise belongs to Albertus; but it is certain that the author, whoever he may have been, and also Bacon, both derived their information from the same source.
When M. von Arretin lately announced that he was about to publish a manuscript preserved in the electoral library at Munich, which contained the true recipe for making the Greek fire and the oldest for gunpowder, the same writing, as appears, was printed from two manuscripts in the library at Paris. I have now before me a copy of it, which was transmitted to the library of our university by M. Laporte Dutheil, conservateur des Manuscrits de la Bibliothèque1248.
It contains many recipes, but only with a few variations, as in Albertus Magnus; and it may be evidently seen that Roger Bacon employed this writing, which is mentioned by Jebb in the preface to his edition, from a copy preserved in the library of Dr. Mead. Of this Marcus Græcus nothing at present is known. According to some, he lived in the ninth century; but others, with more probability, place him in the thirteenth. Of his work, perhaps, we have only a translation; for, from the surname Græcus, there is reason to think that the original was written in the Greek language. I must, however, remark that Cardan, where he gives directions for making a fire which can be kindled by water, names Marcus Gracchus, but not Græcus. Scaliger, who, as is very probable, had this writing also, makes no mention of it or its author.
This Marcus speaks of saltpetre three times; first under the name of sal petrosum, which occurs also in the same prescription in Albertus Magnus; but the addition, which Albertus does not repeat, is very remarkable. In my opinion, scrophulæ contra lapides means the incrustation found on walls, which was represented as a kind of leprosy. The addition of ashes, or alkaline salts, the author either forgot or omitted, because perhaps he did not consider it as indispensably necessary. In another place it is said, Lapis qui dicitur petra solis, or, as it is in other manuscripts, salis; but whether saltpetre is here understood I will not venture to determine. In a third passage we find the words de sale petroso, or de salepetro.
In the works of Bacon the term sal petræ occurs at least three times. According to Casiri, the term pulvis nitratus is to be found in an Arabic manuscript, the author of which lived about the year 12491249. If the work of Geber, already quoted, be genuine, and if this writer lived, as some think, in the eighth century, it would be the oldest where saltpetre is mentioned, in a prescription for an aqua solutiva or dissolutiva, which almost seems to be aqua regia. I have not observed the name sal petræ in the works of Vincent Bellovacensis, who lived in the thirteenth century.
In a word, I am more than ever inclined to accede to the opinion of those who believe that gunpowder was invented in India, and brought by the Saracens from Africa to the Europeans, who however improved the preparation of it, and found out different ways of employing it in war, as well as small arms and cannon1250. In no country could saltpetre, and the various uses of it, be more easily discovered than in India, where the soil is so rich in nitrous particles that nothing is necessary but to lixiviate it in order to obtain saltpetre; and where this substance is so abundant, that almost all the gunpowder used in the different wars with which the sovereigns of Europe have tormented mankind was made from Indian saltpetre1251. If it be true that saltpetre was not known in Europe till the thirteenth century, neither gunpowder nor aquafortis could have been made before that time; for the former cannot be prepared without saltpetre, nor the latter without nitre. But if it be true that this salt was known at a much earlier period in India, it is not improbable that both gunpowder and aquafortis were used by the Indians and the Arabians before they were employed by the Europeans, especially as the former were the first teachers of chemistry to the latter. In my opinion, what I have already related proves this in regard to gunpowder; and what I shall here add will afford an equal proof in regard to aquafortis.
It is difficult to discover the first mention of mineral acids in the writings of the ancient chemists. In the course of their numerous experiments they obtained indeed, at an early period, acids, the utility of which they extol; but each concealed the process by which they were made; and as they had no method of obtaining them pure, they were for a long time unacquainted with the difference between the kinds. Their prescriptions, when they are found, are so contradictory and so carelessly written, that it is almost impossible to conjecture which of the known acids forms the principal component parts in their recipes or mixtures.
It appears to me, that the first intelligible account of aquafortis occurs in the writings of the Arabians, or of the pupils of Arabian chemists. At present I am acquainted with none older than that to be found in the works of Geber. For though I do not believe that those of which we have Latin translations belong to a Geber of the eighth or ninth century, I am ready to admit that they may be, at any rate, of the twelfth. This appears probable, because about that period aquafortis and various arts are oftener mentioned, and in a much clearer manner, in these writings.
It is to be regretted in the history of chemistry, that it is impossible to determine the period of the Greek chemist or alchemist known under the name of Synesius; but it cannot be doubted that he borrowed a great deal from the works of the Arabians. This Synesius, among the chemical solvents, mentions water of saltpetre, which might be considered as aquafortis1252. But, as he mentions at the same time aqua fæcis, he appears to me to allude to the nitrum of the ancients, not to our saltpetre, and in general to strong alkaline leys, which indeed are capable of dissolving many bodies.
The monk Theophilus, of whom I have already spoken, and who in all probability lived in the twelfth century, appears also to have been acquainted with aquafortis; for in some of the passages quoted from his works by Raspe1253, he speaks of an acid which dissolved all metals. In the writings of Vincent Bellovacensis, in the thirteenth century, some traces, but very doubtful, are found of aquafortis. Where he mentions the different sorts of gold he speaks of dissolving it, but by this expression he does not allude to its treatment with fire, which he speaks of separately1254. In another place he mentions the different solvents, and among these names vegetable acids, a water of sal-ammoniac, and a water obtained from alum by distillation. He here means undoubtedly a mineral acid1255. Michael Meier, the most learned chemist of the seventeenth century, says that Vincentius speaks of aquafortis as of a secret; but the passage I have not yet been able to find1256.
Spielman states that Lullius, who died in 1315, in the eightieth year of his age, gave an account of his obtaining aquafortis from saltpetre by the addition of vitriol, and that Basilius Valentin was acquainted with the use of clay for the same purpose. Picus Mirandula however declares it to be uncertain whether Arnoldus de Villa Nova was acquainted with the acid of saltpetre in the fourteenth century.
It appears to be an old tradition that this acid was first employed at Venice, by some Germans, for separating the noble metals, and conveyed thence as an article of merchandize to every part of Europe. The persons who prepared it were there narrowly watched, in order that the process might not become known. They were employed chiefly for separating the gold from the Spanish silver, and by these means acquired great riches. Hence arose the report that the people of Venice understood the art of making gold; and it is certain that in many countries the gold refiners were for a long time considered as gold makers; but in no period were there more gold makers than in that when separation in the moist way became known. I can however give less account of this art of the Venetians than of the introduction of it into France in the fifteenth or the beginning of the sixteenth century.
William Budæus, who was born in 1467, and died in 1540, speaks of it in his book, printed for the first time in 1516, as a thing entirely new at that period1257. A man of low extraction, named Le Cointe, first undertook to separate gold from silver at Paris, by means of a water which Budæus calls aqua chrysulca. It is very remarkable, that by means of this water he could separate the smallest particle of gold from silver, and from every other metal; nay, he could even take from vessels their gilding without altering their form. By this art he acquired great wealth; which together with his secret descended to his son, who at the time was the only gold refiner at Paris.
He adds, that the art was exceedingly dangerous as well as unhealthy, and required great precaution. The possessor of it, when he became rich, left the execution of the work to a servant, whom he directed at a distance, that he might not expose himself to the pernicious fumes of the effervescing liquor. The fumes of the acid derived from saltpetre are indeed prejudicial to the health; but the danger has been much exaggerated, and no doubt with a view to deter people from attempting to discover the art, and to furnish a pretence for raising the price of the production1258.
Budæus relates also, that the gold was left behind undissolved. The silver only was dissolved, and by another art was separated from the water and washed. It may here be easily perceived that Le Cointe employed aquafortis; but if he was able to loosen the gold from gilt vessels without destroying them, he must have used aqua regia, which consequently was not then unknown.
From other information, it appears that the mint at Paris purchased the art from Le Cointe’s son, but still kept it a secret. On this account Francis I., by a decree issued at Blois on the 19th of March 1540, authorized the raising the value of coin, in order to defray the expense of fuel and assaying-water. In the middle of the seventeenth century, the preparation of aquafortis and the process of assaying in the moist way were fully known in France. At any rate, in the month of January 1637, the distillers obtained a guild letter, in which aquafortis is mentioned among the articles sold by them.
When saltpetre became necessary to governments for the manufacture of gunpowder, they endeavoured to obtain it at as cheap a rate as possible. No one before suspected that rulers would be justified in exclusively carrying away the incrustation of walls from private houses, which, when it could be used, became accessorium fundi. But the idea of regalia, so often abused, was extended so wide under various pretences, that the saltpetre regale and the letting of it was one of the severest oppressions to which the people were exposed by their rulers, and which occasioned almost as bitter complaints as the hunting regale, founded on no better grounds. I shall not here attempt to delineate the sufferings which were thus occasioned in many countries; they are still fresh in remembrance.
The oldest mention of this hated regale which I myself have found is of the year 1419. At that time, Gunther, archbishop of Magdeburg, granted to some person the right of searching out saltpetre and boiling it, during a year, in the district of Gibichenstein, for which he was to pay a barrel of saltpetre, and deliver to the archbishop the remainder at the rate of five cross-groschens per pound. The succeeding archbishop, Frederick, let in the year 1460, to a burgher of Halle, all the earth and the saltpetre that could be collected from it in the bailiwick of Gibichenstein, for four years, at the annual rent of a barrel of good refined saltpetre. On the same conditions, bishop Ernest, in 1477, let to some one for his lifetime the collection of the saltpetre. In 1544, a certain person obtained the collection of saltpetre from two heaps of rubbish before the gates at Halle. The magistrates of Halle also in 1545 had a saltpetre-work and a powder-mill. In the year 1560, John VI., archbishop of Triers, gave to some one permission to search for and dig up saltpetre. In 1583, the saltpetre regale was confirmed by a Brandenburg decree as a thing long known, and the case was the same with a Hessian of the year 1589.
It is very probable that this example was soon followed by most sovereigns; but even if they had collected and scraped together the nitrous incrustation of all the walls in Europe, they certainly would not have found a quantity of saltpetre sufficient for the gunpowder used in the numerous wars which took place, had not a much greater supply been obtained from India, and particularly from Patna. I do not know whether the Portuguese brought this article to Europe; but that it was imported at a very early period by the Dutch is proved by the oldest ladings of their return ships; and they at length found means to appropriate this branch of trade so entirely to themselves, that the other Europeans for a long time could not obtain any saltpetre in India.
In the seventeenth century, when chemistry began to be studied with more care and attention in Europe, and particularly in Germany, and the component parts and production of saltpetre became better known, many conceived the idea of improving the methods of obtaining it in Europe so much, that it might be possible to dispense with the Indian saltpetre, and flattered themselves with the hopes of thence deriving great advantages. Some proposed to fill tubes with putrifiable substances and earth capable of fixing of the nitric acid; others preferred building vaults of these substances, and Glauber recommended the filling of pits with them. The proposal, however, which met with the greatest approbation was that of building walls of them. Through a confidence in this idea, towns and villages were compelled to erect and maintain a certain number of saltpetre walls, under the most gracious promise that the collectors of saltpetre should no longer be allowed to spoil private dwellings, or render them unhealthful.
But experience has shown that all the means and coercive measures hitherto employed have rendered the European saltpetre much dearer than that obtained by commerce from Bengal. This will be readily comprehended, when it is known that earth richly impregnated with saltpetre abounds in India, and that it may be extracted by lixiviation without any addition, and brought to crystallize in that warm climate without the aid of fire; that the price of labour there is exceedingly low; that this salt is brought from India instead of ballast by all the commercial nations of Europe, where the competition of the sellers prevents the price from ever being extravagantly high, while the preparation of it in Europe, in consequence of the still increasing price of labour, fuel and ashes, is always becoming dearer. This regale will at length be everywhere scouted. In the duchy of Wurtemberg and the Prussian states, where it was most rigidly enforced, in consequence of an urgent representation from the States it was abolished in 1798; but in both countries an indemnification was given to government for the loss. The case also has been the same in Sweden1259. In the duchy of Brunswick it was soon suffered to drop; but in the electoral dominions it never was introduced.
[The greater part of our nitre is derived from Bengal, where, as in Egypt, Persia, Spain, &c., it exists in the soil. It is separated by lixiviation and crystallization. In France, Sweden and some other countries it is prepared artificially in nitre-beds. These are formed of various animal matters, mixed with lime or mortar-rubbish; the mixture is watered and stirred occasionally, and allowed to remain for a considerable time. The whole is then lixiviated and decomposed by carbonate of potash. The nitre is then separated and purified by crystallization. In some cases wood-ashes are mixed with the animal matters; the decomposition with potash is then unnecessary.
It is a question whether the nitric acid in the nitre arises from the nitrogen of the atmosphere or that in the animal matters. Dr. Davy has found nitre in a cave at Ceylon, where no nitrogenous matter was present; and in some parts of India, Spain, and some other countries, at a distance from all habitations, immense quantities of nitre are reproduced in soils which have been washed the year before. Nitre is directly brought into this country from Calcutta and Madras, in bags containing from 150 lbs. to 175 lbs. each. From 200,000 cwts. to 260,000 cwts. are annually imported into the United Kingdom.
In making gunpowder, the components, the sulphur, nitre, and charcoal should be as pure as possible, and reduced to the finest possible powder; they are sifted and mixed in the proper proportions. The mixture is then made into a cake with water, and ground between calcareous millstones. It is then granulated through sieves in another mill, and again sifted. It is then polished and hardened by revolving rapidly in a cask, and finally dried. The proportions of the constituents vary in different countries; at Waltham Abbey they are seventy-five nitre, fifteen charcoal and ten sulphur. The quantity of gunpowder consumed in this country is enormous; moreover, 4,000,000 lbs. are annually exported, the greater part of which is sent to the western coast of Africa.
The force of the explosion of gunpowder is owing to the sudden disengagement of gaseous products; these consist of nitrogen, carbonic oxide, carbonic acid, and sulphurous acid gases; and their volume has been calculated to amount to 2000 times the bulk of the powder.]
BOOK-CENSORS
“On account of the great ease,” says M. Putter, “with which, after the invention of printing, copies of books could be multiplied and dispersed, it was necessary that some means should be devised to prevent a bad use from being made of this art, and to guard against its being employed to the prejudice of either religion or good morals, or to the injury of states. For this reason it was everywhere laid down as a general maxim, that no one should be allowed to establish a printing office at pleasure, but by the permission and under the inspection of government; and that no work should be suffered to go to press until it had been examined by a censor appointed for that purpose, or declared by a particular order to be of a harmless nature1260.”
Many centuries however before the invention of printing, books were forbidden by different governments, and even condemned to the flames. A variety of proofs can be produced that this was the case among both the ancient Greeks and Romans. At Athens the works of Protagoras were prohibited; and all the copies of them which could be collected were burnt by the public crier1261. At Rome the writings of Numa, which had been found in his grave, were, by order of the senate, condemned to the fire, because they were contrary to the religion which he had introduced1262. As the populace at Rome were, in times of public calamity, more addicted to superstition than seemed proper to the government, an order was issued that all superstitious and astrological books should be delivered into the hands of the prætor. This order was often repeated; and the emperor Augustus caused more than two thousand of these books to be burnt at one time1263. Under the same emperor the satirical works of Labienus were condemned to the fire, which was the first instance of this nature; and it is related as something singular, that a few years after the writings of the person who had been the cause of the order for that purpose shared the like fate, and were also publicly burnt1264. (In a manner somewhat similar the works of Ben. Arias Montanus, who assisted to make the first catalogue of prohibited books in the Netherlands, were afterwards inserted in a catalogue of the same kind). The burning of these works having induced Cassius Severus to say, in a sneering manner, that it would be necessary to burn him alive, as he had got by heart the writings of his friend Labienus, this expression gave rise to a law of Augustus against abusive writings1265. When Cremutius Cordus, in his History, called C. Cassius the last of the Romans, the senate, in order to flatter Tiberius, caused the book to be burnt; but a number of copies were saved by being concealed1266. Antiochus Epiphanes caused the books of the Jews to be burnt1267; and in the first centuries of our æra the books of the Christians were treated with equal severity, of which Arnobius bitterly complains1268. We are told by Eusebius, that Diocletian caused the sacred Scriptures to be burnt1269. After the spreading of the Christian religion the clergy exercised against books that were either unfavourable or disagreeable to them, the same severity which they had censured in the heathens as foolish and prejudicial to their own cause. Thus were the writings of Arius condemned to the flames at the council of Nice; and Constantine threatened with the punishment of death those who should conceal them1270. The clergy assembled at the council of Ephesus requested the emperor Theodosius II. to cause the works of Nestorius to be burnt; and this desire was complied with1271. The writings of Eutyches shared the like fate at the council of Chalcedon; and it would not be difficult to collect examples of the same kind from each of the following centuries.
We have instances also that, many centuries prior to the invention of printing, authors submitted their works, before they were published, to the judgement of their superiors. This was done principally by the clergy; partly to secure themselves from censure or punishment, and partly to show their respect to the pope or to bishops. It however does not appear that this was a duty, but a voluntary act. In the year 768, Ambrosius Autpert, a Benedictine monk, sent his Exposition of the book of Revelation to Pope Stephen III., and begged that he would publish the work and make it known. On this occasion he says expressly, that he is the first writer who ever requested such a favour; that liberty to write belongs to every one who does not wish to depart from the doctrine of the fathers of the church; and he hopes that this freedom will not be lessened on account of his voluntary submission1272.
Soon after the invention of printing, laws began to be made for subjecting books to examination; a regulation proposed even by Plato, and which has been wished for by many since. It is very probable that the fear under which the clergy were, lest publications should get abroad prejudicial to religion, and consequently to their power, contributed not a little to hasten the establishment of book-censors. The earliest instance of a book printed with a permission from government, is commonly supposed to occur in the year 1480; and Dom Liron, a Benedictine monk, is perhaps the first person who made that remark. He is the author of a work called Singularités Historiques et Litteraires1273; in the last part of which, where he speaks of the Heidelberg edition of the book Nosce te ipsum, in 1480, he says, “This is the first publication I found accompanied with several solemn approbations and attestations in its favour.” The same thing is said by J. N. Weislinger, one of the most illiberal defenders of the Catholic church, in whose work, entitled Armamentarium Catholicum1274, there is an account of that book. He there tells us in Latin, without mentioning Liron, “This is the first book which I have seen, subjected to the examination, reading, and approbation of the clergy;” and in the opinion of Mercier, it really is the oldest. It has four approbations (in Latin); the first and last of which I shall here insert (in English), as they will serve to show the foolish pride of the clergy at that period: – “I Philip Rota, doctor of laws, though the least of all, have read over carefully, and diligently examined, this small work, Nosce te; and as I have found it not only composed devoutly and catholically, but abounding also with matter of wonderful utility, I do not hesitate, in testimony of the above, to subscribe my name… I Mapheus Girardo, by the divine mercy patriarch of Venice and primate of Dalmatia, confiding in the fidelity of the above gentlemen, who have examined and approved the above-mentioned book, do testify that it is a devout and orthodox work.” There were, therefore, censors at this early period who gave their opinion of books without reading them.
I should have considered these instances as the oldest information respecting book-censors, had I not been induced by M. Eccard, the learned amanuensis belonging to our library, to look into the Literary Weekly Journal of Cologne, for the year 1778. In that work I found an ingenious account, by an anonymous author, of the early state of printing in that city, and of two books printed almost a year sooner than 1479, with the approbation of the public censor. The first is Wilhelmi episcopi Lugdunensis Summa de Virtutibus; at the end of which are the following words: – “Benedictus sit dominus virtutum, qui hoc opus earundem felici consummatione terminari dedit in laudabili civitate Coloniensi, temptatum, admissumque et approbatum ab alma universitate studii civitatis praedictae, de consensu et voluntate spectabilis et egregii viri pro tempore recteris ejusdem, impressum per Henr. Quentel.” The other book is a Bible, with the following conclusion: – “Anno incarnationis dominice millesimo quadringentesimo LXXIX ipsa vigilia Matthaei apostoli. Quando insigne veteris novique testamenti opus cum canonibus evangelistarum et eorum concordantiis in laudem et gloriam sancte et individue trinitatis intemerateque virginis Marie impressum in Civitate Coloniensi per Conradum de Homborch, admissum, approbatum ab alma universitate Coloniensi.”
The oldest mandate for appointing a book-censor is, as far as I know at present, that issued by Berthold, archbishop of Mentz, in the year 1486, and which may be found in the fourth volume of Guden’s Codex Diplomaticus1275.
In the year 1501, pope Alexander VI. published a bull, the first part of which may form an excellent companion to the mandate of the archbishop of Mentz1276. After some complaints against the devil, who sows tares among the wheat, his holiness proceeds thus: “Having been informed, that by means of the said art many books and treatises containing various errors and pernicious doctrines, even hostile to the holy Christian religion, have been printed, and are still printed in various parts of the world, particularly in the provinces of Cologne, Mentz, Triers, and Magdeburg; and being desirous, without further delay, to put a stop to this detestable evil … we, by these presents, and by authority of the Apostolic chamber, strictly forbid all printers, their servants, and those exercising the art of printing under them, in any manner whatsoever, in the abovesaid provinces, under pain of excommunication, and a pecuniary fine, to be imposed and exacted by our venerable brethren the archbishops of Cologne, Mentz, Triers, and Magdeburg, and their vicars-general or official in spirituals, according to the pleasure of each in his own province, to print hereafter any books, treatises, or writings, until they have consulted on this subject the archbishops, vicars, or officials above-mentioned, and obtained their special and express licence, to be granted free of all expense, whose consciences we charge, that before they grant any licence of this kind, they will carefully examine, or cause to be examined, by able and catholic persons, the works to be printed; and that they will take the utmost care that nothing may be printed wicked and scandalous, or contrary to the orthodox faith.” The rest of the bull contains regulations to prevent works already printed from doing mischief. All catalogues and books printed before that period were to be examined, and those which contained anything prejudicial to the Catholic religion were to be burned.
In the beginning of the sixteenth century, it was ordered by the well-known council of the Lateran, held at Rome in the year 1515, that in future no books should be printed but such as had been inspected by ecclesiastical censors.
In France, the faculty of Theology usurped, as some say, the right of censuring books; but in the year 1650, when public censors, whom the faculty opposed, were appointed without their consent, they stated the antiquity of their right to be two hundred years. For they said, “It is above two hundred years since the doctors of Paris have had a right to approve books without being subjected but to their own faculty, to which they assert they are alone responsible for their decisions1277.”
[In no country of Europe does the liberty of the press prevail to such an extent as with us, the only vestige of censorship being the censor for the drama. In Rome the same strictness prevails as ever, but a brighter day seems dawning. In Germany the censorship is excessively severe, especially in Austria, Bavaria, and Prussia. However, most of the prohibited works are printed in Switzerland, Hamburg, or Leipsig, and there being a very large demand for such works, they may be had of almost any bookseller in every principal town. To put a stop to this, the present monarch of Prussia, professedly a liberal, placed under ban all the works issued by the firm of Hoffmann and Campe of Hamburg, because they published the political poems of Hoffmann von Fallersleben. Caricatures are, as the reader may suppose, subject to as strict a law, and no H.B. could be tolerated there.]
