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

The first distinct traces of our sal-ammoniac which I have yet met with are to be found in the works of the Arabians⁹⁸⁶. In a writing of Geber, there is a prescription how to purify sal-ammoniac by sublimation, and in another a receipt for making it; so that there can be no doubt that the author was acquainted with our salt. But this furnishes very little towards the history of it. The period when that celebrated chemist lived is uncertain. If, as Leo says⁹⁸⁷, he flourished a hundred years after Mahomet, that is to say in the eighth century, his works must have been interpolated with many additions, which criticism has not yet been able to separate. Many of them cannot be of great antiquity; and the uncertainty is increased by some of the editions differing from each other in important passages. Whole sections, which some have, are wanting in others; and the titles and order of the books and sections are different almost in each. When the same circumstances are found in several editions, it is observed that they essentially differ. What, therefore, is now found in the writings of Geber, as they are called, was certainly not all known in the eighth century.

The same uncertainty prevails in regard to the chemical works of Avicenna, who lived in the beginning of the eleventh century, and who certainly treats of sal-ammoniac. But when these are compared with the medical works of this author, which are subject to no doubt, it is evidently perceived that the former must have been the production of a very different and much younger writer. In the works of the physician Avicenna, sal-ammoniacus means always rock-salt. It is worthy of remark, that Avicenna the chemist says, that sal-ammoniac comes from Egypt, India, and Forperia.

We know with more certainty that Albucasis, or Bulcasis, was acquainted with sal-ammoniac, as well as the method of preparing it, which he describes, and also the preparation of medicines in general, in his book often printed under the title of Liber servitoris⁹⁸⁸. However unintelligible the translation often is, one can easily discover in what manner sublimation was formerly performed in earthen vessels. But the period when this Arabian writer lived is doubtful, though it is generally admitted that he died in the year 1122.

But whence did Europe obtain this salt, in the twelfth and succeeding centuries? When and in what manner was the preparation of it found out in Egypt? For what purpose was it first used by our ancestors? I have not yet met with any information to enable me to answer these questions, though it is probable that it might be found in old books of travels, and particularly in the works of Arabian writers. In the valuable but not altogether intelligible book of Pegolotti⁹⁸⁹, from which I have learned many things respecting the trade of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, nothing is said in regard to the place where it was obtained, but that it was procured in white, hard, and opake cakes. It is mentioned in the custom-house tariff of Pisa for the year 1408.

Biringoccio, who lived in the end of the fifteenth and beginning of the following century⁹⁹⁰, knew nothing more than that, according to report, it came from Cyrene or Armenia. Cæsalpin, his contemporary, gave, for the preparation of it, a prescription which is undoubtedly borrowed from the Arabians. This author says, very properly, that it is obtained in white transparent cakes, blackish on the outside; but adds, erroneously, that it comes from Germany, though the same thing has been repeated by Brasavolus and Matthioli. Porta says, with more truth, that it comes from the East. He asserts also, that he was the first person who found real sal-ammoniac on volcanic mountains, and he wishes that his discovery might be confirmed by skilful naturalists⁹⁹¹. This may serve as an additional proof, were such necessary, in opposition to those who think that the first real sal-ammoniac introduced into commerce was the volcanic. Imperato considers Porta’s observation as generally acknowledged, but without naming him. The former has described, in a fuller and more correct manner than any of his predecessors, the properties of sal-ammoniac⁹⁹²; and he states, as does also Agricola⁹⁹³, that it is entirely dissipated in the fire. He adds, that it promotes the production of a celestial blue colour, and in all probability he here alludes to a solution of copper.

Without attempting to examine at what time the art was discovered of converting the nitric acid into aqua regia by the addition of sal-ammoniac, I shall only remark that, at any rate, it was known in the sixteenth century; for Imperato says that sal-ammoniac is employed in the solution of gold; and Biringoccio⁹⁹⁴, who is older, recommends nitrous acid prepared with sal-ammoniac for dissolving metals, and particularly gold. I will not either determine how old the use of this salt is in soldering and tinning; but I must observe, that it was known to Agricola⁹⁹⁵ and Imperato. I however doubt whether it was very common, because Biringoccio⁹⁹⁶ recommends borax for that purpose, without so much as mentioning sal-ammoniac; though it is possible that I may have overlooked it.

We are now arrived at the modern history, which I shall give in as brief a manner as I can, because it has been already fully treated on by others. What was long ago shown by the celebrated Mr. Boyle was proved in the year 1716 by Geoffroy the younger, that sal-ammoniac was composed of the muriatic acid and volatile alkali, and that it could be thence prepared in Europe by sublimation⁹⁹⁷. In the same year the jesuit Sicard gave the first certain account of the sal-ammoniac manufactories at Damayer, in the Delta, and described in what manner this salt was prepared there, by sublimation in glass vessels, from the soot of the burnt dung of camels and cows, which is used in Egypt for fuel, with the addition of sea salt and urine⁹⁹⁸. In the year 1719, the Academy of Sciences at Paris received from Lemere, the French consul at Cairo, an account of the process employed; but it contained no mention either of sea salt or of urine⁹⁹⁹. Afterwards this information was in part confirmed, and in part rectified and enlarged, by Paul Lucas¹⁰⁰⁰, Granger, or, as he was properly called, Tourtechot¹⁰⁰¹, and the celebrated travellers Shaw, Pocock, Norden, Hasselquist, Niebuhr, and Mariti.

Several writers have asserted that sal-ammoniac comes also from the East Indies. It is mentioned by Tavernier among the wares which in his time were brought from Amadabat, in the territories of the Mogul, to Surat; and Geoffroy states, that when the trade of Marseilles was interrupted by the plague, the French obtained from Holland sal-ammoniac, which was shaped like a truncated cone, and was given out to be Indian¹⁰⁰². Pomet also says, that some of the same kind was formerly procured from Venice and Holland. But Gaubius asserts that he was never able to hear of any such sal-ammoniac in Holland¹⁰⁰³; nor is it to be found in the price currents of the East India Company. I am almost inclined to suspect that these truncated cones were formed by the merchants from broken pieces or fragments of the Egyptian sal-ammoniac, by solution and imperfect crystallization or sublimation. In this manner the merchants at Marseilles convert the refuse of the Egyptian sal-ammoniac into cakes by a new sublimation, in order that it may become more saleable, though it is not readily purchased by artists. Gaubius, however, has described a kind of sal-ammoniac which he obtained from India, with the information that it was made in Hindostan from the soot of animal dung; but in my opinion this requires further confirmation¹⁰⁰⁴.

Where and at what time the first works for making sal-ammoniac were established in Europe, I am not able to determine. The account given by Thurneisser, that the first sal-ammoniac was made in the Tyrol in the ninth century, is truly ridiculous. It is not worth the trouble to inquire where he or Paracelsus found this foolish assertion. One might be almost induced to believe, that in the time of Boyle there were manufactories of sal-ammoniac in Europe¹⁰⁰⁵. But perhaps there may be no other foundation for all this than the before-mentioned assertion of Cæsalpinus, that this salt came from Germany. At Bamberg, the Germans were long accustomed to boil the sediment of the salt-pans with old urine, and to sell it cheap for sal-ammoniac; and Weber asserts that some of the same kind is still made at Vienna. The hundred weight costs from twenty to thirty florins, but the refuse may be purchased for a mere trifle. If I am not mistaken, the first real manufactories of sal-ammoniac were established in Scotland; and the oldest of these, perhaps, was that erected by Dovin and Hutton at Edinburgh in 1756, and which, like many in England, manufactures this salt on a large scale¹⁰⁰⁶. Among the later undertakings of this kind is Gravenhorst’s manufactory at Brunswick, and that which in the neighbourhood of Gothenburg manufactures sal-ammoniac from the refuse left in making train oil.

[Sal-ammoniac is now prepared either by the destructive distillation of bones or coal. The gas-liquor supplies, we believe, the largest part. This fluid contains hydrosulphuret and carbonate with some other salts of ammonia. It is decomposed with sulphuric acid, and on evaporation the sulphate of ammonia is obtained in a crystalline state. This is then mixed with common salt and the mixture heated in iron vessels, whereupon the muriate of ammonia sublimes.

Sal-ammoniac is exported in considerable quantities to Russia and other parts of the continent and to the United States.]

FORKS

At present forks are so necessary at table among polished nations, that the very idea of eating a meal without them excites disgust. The introduction of them, however, is of so modern a date, that they have scarcely been in use three centuries. “Tam prope ab origine rerum sumus,” says Pliny, in speaking of a thing which, though very new, was then exceedingly common. Neither the Greeks nor the Romans have any name for these instruments; and no phrase or expression which, with the least probability, can be referred to the use of them, occurs anywhere in their writings. But had forks been known, this could not have been the case, since so many entertainments are celebrated by the poets or described by other writers; and they must also have been mentioned by Pollux, in the very full catalogue which he has given of articles necessary for the table.

The Greek word creagra signified indeed a fork, but not a fork used at table. It meant merely a flesh-fork, or that instrument employed by cooks to take meat from a boiling pot, as is proved by the connexion of the words in all those passages where it occurs. It is mentioned by Pollux, and by Anaxippus, in Athenæus¹⁰⁰⁷, among the utensils of the kitchen; and the scholiast on Aristophanes says that this fork had a resemblance to the hand, and was used to prevent the fingers from being scalded. Suidas quotes a passage where the word denotes a hook at the end of a long pole, with which people, even at present, draw up water-buckets from wells and other deep places. This instrument, therefore, appears sometimes to have had only a hook, but sometimes two or more prongs. Creagra occurs once in Martianus Capella, a Latin writer, but in a passage which is not intelligible.

Equally inapplicable to our forks are the words furca, fuscina, fucilla, fuscinula, and gabalus, which are given in dictionaries. The first two were undoubtedly instruments which approached nearly to our furnace and hay forks. The trident of Neptune also was called fuscina. The furcilla even was large enough to be employed for a weapon of defence, as is proved by the expressions furcillis ejicere and expellere. Fuscinula, which in modern times is used chiefly for a table fork, is not to be found even once in any of the old Latin writers. The old translation of the Bible only explains the word κρεάγρα by fuscinula. Gabalus, according to every appearance, has given rise to the German word gabeln, but it denotes the cross or gallows, which last word Voscius deduces from it.

A learned Italian, who asserts also that the use of forks is very new, is of opinion that the Romans often used ligulæ instead of forks¹⁰⁰⁸. This I shall not deny; but the ligula certainly had more resemblance to a small spatula, or tea-spoon, than to our forks. According to Martial, many spoons at the other end seem to have been ligulæ¹⁰⁰⁹. But the two epigrams must be read in conjunction, so that the second may appear a continuation of the first; for the epithets habilis and utilis can be applied to no other term than ligula. Besides, it is certain that the titles of the epigrams, or at least the greater part of them, were not added by the poet, but by transcribers. The name also, which originally was lingula, gives an idea of the form. We read likewise that this instrument was used for scumming, for which purpose nothing is less fit than a fork¹⁰¹⁰.

I have, I know not how, a great unwillingness to represent the tables of our ancestors as without forks; yet this was certainly the case: and when we reflect on their manner of eating, it will readily be perceived that they could much easier dispense with the use of them than we can. All their food, as is still customary in the East, was dressed in such a manner as to be exceedingly tender, and therefore could be easily pulled to pieces. It appears however that people, though not in the earliest periods, employed the same means as our cooks, and suffered meat to lie some time that it might be easier dressed. We often read that cooks, in order to provide an entertainment speedily, will kill an animal, and having cleaned and divided it, roast it immediately, and then serve it up to their guests. But it is well known that the flesh of animals newly killed, if cooked before it has entirely lost its natural warmth, is exceedingly tender and savoury, as we are assured in many books of travels.

Formerly all articles of food were cut into small morsels before they were served up; and this was the more necessary, as the company did not sit at table, but lay on couches turned towards it, consequently could not well use both their hands for eating. For cutting meat, persons of rank kept in their houses a carver, who had learned to perform his duty according to certain rules, and who was called scissor, carpus, carptor, and by Apuleius is named diribitor¹⁰¹¹. This person used a knife, the only one placed on the table, and which in the houses of the opulent had an ivory handle, and was commonly ornamented with silver¹⁰¹².

Bread also was never cut at table. In former times it was not baked so thick as at present, but rather like cakes, and could easily be broken; hence mention is so often made of the breaking of bread. Juvenal, when he wishes to describe old bread, does not say that it could not be cut, but that it could not be broken¹⁰¹³. The ancient form of bread is still retained in the paschal cake of the Jews, and in the knæckbröd¹⁰¹⁴ of the Swedes. The latter, which is almost as brittle as biscuit, is not cut when used, but broken.

The Chinese, who also use no forks, have however small sticks of ivory, which are often of very fine workmanship, and inlaid with silver and gold. A couple of these is placed before each guest, who employs them for putting into his mouth the meat which has been cut into small bits. But even this resource was not known two centuries ago in Europe, where people, as is still done by the Turks, everywhere used their fingers. As a proof, I shall not quote passages where mention is made of persons putting their hands or fingers into the dish¹⁰¹⁵; for such a mode of speaking is yet employed, though forks, as is well known, are in common use. I shall refer only to one passage in Ovid, which admits of no doubt¹⁰¹⁶, and where the author would certainly have mentioned these instruments, or rather have communicated to his pupils in the art of love a precept which at present is given to children, had the former been taught when young how to make use of forks.

Had they been used by the Romans, they must necessarily have occurred among the numerous remains of antiquity which have been collected in modern times. But Baruffaldi and Biörnstähl¹⁰¹⁷, who both made researches respecting them, assure us that they were never able to find any. Count Caylus¹⁰¹⁸ and Grignon¹⁰¹⁹ only assert the contrary. The former has given a figure and description of a silver two-pronged fork, which was found among rubbish in the Appian Way. It is of exceedingly beautiful workmanship, and at one end terminates in a stag’s foot. Notwithstanding the high reputation of this French author, I cannot possibly admit that everything of which he has given figures is so old as he seems to imagine. Grignon found in the ruins of a Roman town in Champagne some articles which he considers as table-forks; but he merely mentions them, without giving a description sufficient to convince one of the truth of what he asserts, which, in regard to a thing so unexpected, was certainly requisite. One fork was of copper or brass; two others were of iron; and he says, speaking of the latter, that they seem to have served as table-forks, but were coarsely made. I however doubt whether he conjectured right in regard to the use of them.

As far as I know, the use of forks was first known in Italy towards the end of the fifteenth century; but at that time they were not very common. Galeotus Martius, an Italian, resident at the court of Matthias Corvinus, king of Hungary, who reigned from 1458 to 1490, relates, in a book which he wrote in regard to the life and actions of this prince, that in Hungary, at that time, forks were not used at table, as they were in many parts of Italy¹⁰²⁰, but that at meals each person laid hold of the meat with his fingers, and on that account they were much stained with saffron, which was then put into sauces and soup. He praises the king for eating without a fork, yet conversing at the same time and never dirtying his clothes.

That in France, at the end of the sixteenth century, forks even at court were entirely new, is proved by a book, already quoted in the present volume of this work, entitled l’Isle des Hermaphrodites. It will therefore excite no wonder that in the same century forks were not used in Sweden.

But it must appear very strange that Thomas Coryate, the traveller, should see forks for the first time in Italy, and in the same year be the first person who used them in England, on which account he was called, by way of joke, Furcifer¹⁰²¹.

In many parts of Spain, at present, drinking-glasses, spoons and forks are rarities¹⁰²²; and even yet, in taverns, in many countries, particularly in some towns of France, knives are not placed on the table, because it is expected that each person should have one of his own; a custom which the French seem to have retained from the old Gauls. But as no person would any longer eat without forks, landlords were obliged to furnish these, together with plates and spoons.

Among the Scotch highlanders, as Dr. Johnson asserts, knives have been introduced at table only since the time of the revolution. Before that period every man had a knife of his own as a companion to his dirk or dagger. The men cut the meat into small morsels for the women, who then put them into their mouths with their fingers. The use of forks at table was at first considered as a superfluous luxury, and therefore they were forbidden to convents, as was the case in regard to the congregation of St. Maur.

The English, Dutch and French have adopted the Italian names forca and forchetta, given to our table-forks; though these appellations, in my opinion, were used at an earlier period to denote large instruments, such as pitch-forks, flesh-forks, furnace-forks; because in the low German, forke is a very old name given to such implements. The German word gabel, which occurs first in dictionaries for these large instruments, is of great antiquity, and has been still retained in the Swedish and Dutch. It appears to have been used for many things which were split or divided into two; at any rate, it is certain that it is not derived from the Latin word gabalus.