There are also ninety-seven county hospitals, infirmaries and dispensaries[1145 - The Margate sea-bathing infirmary deserves especial mention, as being the only institution of the kind in England, perhaps in Europe. Its object is to provide sea-bathing for necessitous patients suffering under scrofulous and such other diseases as are likely to yield only to sea-air and bathing. It was set on foot in 1793, and established in 1796, by a few benevolent individuals in London, under the fostering auspices of Dr. Lettsom, John Nichols, Esq. (the eminent printer), and his son-in-law, the Rev. John Pridden. Its present site, Westbrook, near Margate, was selected after much inquiry, as the most salubrious spot on the coast within a convenient distance of the metropolis. From a small beginning this excellent charity has arisen to considerable importance in the scale of those valuable institutions which are designed to lessen the amount of human suffering, and it now numbers 230 in-door and about as many out-door patients. This praiseworthy institution however is closed during six months in the year (from November to April), and the in-door patients are required to pay, either by themselves or their friends, from 5s. to 6s. per week for adults, and 4s. to 4s. 6d. per week for children; which, as scrofulous diseases more particularly afflict the very poorer classes, are subjects of regret.].
Admission to the hospitals is gained by the presentation of a petition signed by a governor, on a certain day in each week; of course, out of the number of patients who apply, the worst cases have the preference. Accidents and very severe cases are admitted at any time, and without any petition or recommendation. The out-patients require no recommendation. The same general rule gains attendance at the other medical establishments.]
COCK-FIGHTING
Until a recent period the English were almost the only people among whom cock-fighting was a favourite amusement; and on that account it is considered as peculiar to them, though it was esteemed among various nations many centuries ago. It is not improbable that it was first introduced into England by the Romans. That it, however, has been constantly retained there, though the practice of inciting animals to fight has been long scouted by moral and enlightened nations, is as singular an anomaly, as that the Spaniards should still continue their bull-fights, and that princes who wish to avoid the appearance of cruelty should nevertheless pursue, with immoderate passion, the detestable and so often condemned hunting with dogs. I shall leave to others the task of moralising on these contradictions in the character of whole nations as well as individuals, and shall here only give the history of cock-fighting as far as I am acquainted with it.
This pastime is certainly very old; but I agree in opinion with Mr. Pegge[1146 - Archæologia, vol. iii. p. 132. A Memoir on Cock-fighting, by Samuel Pegge, M.A., Rector of Wittington. As this learned antiquary made use of what was collected by others on this subject, I have taken the same liberty with his paper; but have rectified some mistakes and made new additions.], that Palmerius[1147 - Palmerii Exercit. in Auct. Græcos. Ultraj. 1694, 4to, p. 3.] has made it much older than can fully be proved. The latter supposes that Adrastus, the son of Midas, king of Phrygia, killed his brother in consequence of a quarrel which took place between them in regard to a battle of quails. Adrastus on account of this murder fled to Crœsus; and as that prince lived about 550 years before the Christian æra, quail-fighting, according to the opinion of Palmerius, must have been customary at that time; and in this case one might admit that cock-fighting was of the same antiquity, because the battles of the domestic cock are still more violent, and can afford more amusement. Herodotus[1148 - Lib. i. cap. 35 et 45.], who relates the story of Adrastus, does not mention the cause of the quarrel; but it is given by the historian Ptolemy, the son of Hephestion, called also Alexandrinus, who lived about the time of Trajan and Adrian[1149 - See Vossius de Historicis Græcis, lib. ii. cap. 10. Extracts from this book of Ptolemy may be found in Photii Bibliotheca, 1612, fol. p. 472.]. He however only says that the two brothers quarrelled about a quail. Did any other proofs exist that quail-fighting was common at so early a period, it would indeed be then probable that the brothers quarrelled during that pastime. But as no such proofs are to be found, many other causes of quarrelling in regard to a quail, either in catching or pursuing it, may be conceived.
It is however certain that quails, as well as the domestic cock, are exceedingly irritable and quarrelsome birds; and that, like the latter, they can be employed for fighting; but it appears that quail-fighting was first practised by the Romans, in whose writings it is frequently mentioned[1150 - The passages which indisputably relate to quail-fighting, as far as I know, are as follows: Plutarch. Apophthegm. p. 207, ed. Francofurt, 1620, fol. Cæsar Augustus caused a person to be punished for having purchased and used as food a quail which had always been victorious; and in Vita Antonini, p. 930, it is said that Antoninus often had the satisfaction of seeing his game-cocks and quails victorious. M. Antoninus de Se-ipso, i. § 6, declares that he never took pleasure in keeping quails for fighting. Herodian, iii. 10, 4, says that the son of Septimus Severus always got into quarrels at quail- and cock-fighting.]; whereas among the Greeks it seldom or never occurs, while cock-fighting is spoken of on many occasions. The latter however sported with quails; but their pastime with these birds seems not to have been fighting, properly so called, where the great object of contest is whose quail shall be the victor; but the information on this subject is so imperfect that it cannot be fully understood[1151 - This account is given by Jul. Pollux, lib. ix. cap. 7, § 102 et 108. – Suidas, v. ὀρτυγοκόπος, ed. Kusteri, ii. p. 717. – Meursius de Ludis Græcorum, in Gronovii Thes. Græc. Antiq. vii. p. 979.]. Sometimes the parties laid bets who could kill the other’s quails, or the greatest number of them, with one blow. One placed a quail within a circle, and another endeavoured by irritating the animal to make it go beyond it. If he proved successful in this attempt, he was declared the winner. Several were often placed within a circle at the same time, and the person lost whose bird first quitted it. Kühn and others are of opinion, that each of the parties endeavoured to induce the quail of the other to leave the circle, by irritating or enticing it; but the words appear without doubt to allude to a contest of several quails with each other[1152 - Pollux, p. 1095.], were it possible that the later Greeks had learned to play at this game from the contests of the Romans.
Solon, however, in Lucian[1153 - De Gymnasiis, cap. 37.], speaks of cock-fights and quail-fights exhibited publicly at Athens. But Lucian lived in the second century, had travelled into Italy, was well acquainted with the Roman customs, and made Solon mention quail-fighting, which he never saw in Greece, merely because he himself had seen it in Italy. This blunder may appear too gross, perhaps, for so acute a writer as Lucian; but since he has fallen into two anachronisms in the same dialogue, as he not only makes Solon a contemporary of Lycurgus, who lived two centuries earlier, but also introduces him as speaking of public cock-fights at Athens, which were first established half a century later, that is to say, after the battle of Marathon, he may readily have been guilty of a third oversight, by transferring quail-fighting to Athens. But at any rate similar games were usual in the island of Cyprus in the sixteenth century.
It appears, however, that the Romans bred and employed partridges for fighting in the same manner as quails. Lampridius relates, that the emperor Alexander Severus was fond of seeing battles of this kind[1154 - Cap. 41, p. 985.]; and Ælian, who lived in Italy under Heliogabalus, in the second century[1155 - Histor. Anim. iv. 1.], says that those who kept partridges for fighting, when they pitted them against each other, placed the females close to the males, in order to render them more courageous. Without doubt he here speaks of what was then usual at Rome.
Cock-fighting was appointed at Athens to be a public or solemn pastime, in consequence of a circumstance which occurred to Themistocles. At least Ælian relates[1156 - Var. Histor. ii. 28. Kühn quotes from Eustathius’s commentary on the Iliad, p. 740, a passage which contains a new proof that the Romans had quail-fighting rather than cock-fighting. The words of Ælian are admitted by Petit among the Attic laws. See his Leges Atticæ, p. 156.] that this commander, when he led out the Greeks against the Persians, happening to see two cocks fighting, took that opportunity to rouse the courage of his soldiers, by telling them that as these animals contended with so much obstinacy, though they fought neither for their country, their families, nor their liberty, but merely for the honour of victory, it was much more incumbent on them to exert themselves with bravery, as they had all these causes of incitement. Having defeated the enemy, as a memorial of his victory and a future encouragement to bravery, it was ordered that fighting-cocks should be exhibited every year, in a public theatre, in the presence of the whole people.
Mr. Pegge and others are of opinion that the Greeks afterwards took so much pleasure in the fighting of these birds, that they were generally employed throughout all Greece for this pastime and for betting. I am ready to admit that this is probable; but the institution of Themistocles appears to me to be no proof that cock-fighting was not practised at an earlier period. Even if it had been common, the Athenians might have thought proper to establish a religious or at least solemn cock-fighting to be exhibited every year. Themistocles however is not the only person who employed the courage of game-cocks as an incitement to bravery. Socrates inspired Iphicrates with courage, by showing him with what ferocity the cock of Midas, or Meidias, and that of Callias attacked each other[1157 - Diogen. Laert. ii. 30. p. 98.]. What Themistocles said to his soldiers was addressed by Musonius as a philosopher to mankind, to encourage them to support labour, danger, and pain, when duty or honour require it[1158 - Stobæi Eclog. ed. Gesneri. Tiguri 1543, fol. p. 298. Cœlius Rhodiginus Lection. Antiq. xvi. 13, and after him Delechamp, Kühn, Pegge, and others say, that the philosopher Chrysippus extols the game-cock also on account of its courage; but none of these writers has told us where this fragment of the lost works of that polygraph is to be found. I met with it in Plutarchi lib. de Stoicorum repugnantiis, p. 1049.].
Many modern writers ascribe the establishment of public cock-fighting at Athens, not to Themistocles, but to his contemporary Miltiades. I have hitherto suspected that this arises merely from a confusion of names, as is certainly the case in Moses du Soul[1159 - Solanus ad Luciani lib. c.], where a reference is made to Ælian, by whom however Miltiades is not mentioned. At present, I am of opinion that Philo Judæus, who wrote in the first century, gave occasion to this assertion. He relates, that when Miltiades was about to lead the Grecian troops against the Persians, he exhibited a cock-fight, in a place which had been employed for public shows, in order to inspire courage into his soldiers by this spectacle, and that the end proposed was accomplished; but nothing is said by that author in regard to the establishment of annual cock-fights[1160 - The passage occurs in the treatise, Liber quisquis virtuti studet, in op. ed. Mangey, ii. p. 466.]. According to this account, cock-fighting seems to have been at that time not uncommon; but as it remains doubtful whether Philo speaks of the campaign before the battle of Marathon, in which Miltiades and Themistocles were both present, very little can be gathered from his relation, and it appears to me not sufficient to contradict the more circumstantial account of Ælian.
Another small mistake, which Pegge thought it worth while to notice, deserves also perhaps to be rectified. Dalechamp[1161 - In his observations on Pliny, lib. x. 21, sect. 34.] and Potter[1162 - Antiq. of Greece.] assert that Themistocles, while leading out his army, having heard a cock crow, declared this to be an omen of victory, and after beating the enemy he instituted cock-fighting in remembrance of that event. I shall here remark, that Dalechamp is not the first person who made this assertion. Peucer[1163 - De Divinationum Generibus, 1591, 8vo, 232, b.], and at a period still earlier, Alexander ab Alexandro[1164 - Geniales Dies, v. 13.] mentioned the same thing, but no one ever pointed out the passage in any ancient author upon which this assertion was founded; and I have been as unsuccessful in my endeavours to find it, as those who attempted to discover the sources from which Alexander derived his information. This author perhaps collected from manuscripts, in the fifteenth century, many things never printed, and which therefore have been lost. He may also have written many things from memory without remembering them all with accuracy.
It is indeed true, that the crowing of a cock was sometimes considered as a presage of victory. Thus Cicero quotes an instance[1165 - De Divinatione, i. cap. 34.] where a Bœotian soothsayer promised victory to the Thebans from the crowing of a cock; and according to Pliny[1166 - Plin. x. 21, sect. 34.], the same circumstance once served to the Bœotians as an omen of victory over the Lacedæmonians. How then could Themistocles make choice of a cock-fight to commemorate a victory announced by the crowing of a cock? Besides, Anacharsis in Lucian confirms the object of the institution assigned by Ælian. In the history of antiquity many things are often repeated, without any one taking the trouble to examine whether they can be proved by the testimony of the ancients. Those who wish to attain to truth and certainty in matters of this kind, will not consider such short examinations to be of so little importance as they may to others appear.
Dempster has assigned another reason for the cock-fights established by Themistocles, which, though adopted by many, is not even supported by probability. He conceives that these cock-fights were like a kind of permanent trophies or monuments of the conquered Persians, because the game-cock was indigenous in Persia, and conveyed thence to other countries[1167 - In his Annotations on Rosini Antiquit. Rom. iii. cap. 10. See Hyde de Religione Persarum, p. 163.].
Athenæus[1168 - Lib. xiv. cap. 20.], indeed, quotes from a work of Menodotus some lines by which the latter part of this assertion is confirmed; and Aristophanes[1169 - Aves, 484, 707. Beck, in his edition of this comedy, Lips. 1782, 8vo, p. 50, thinks that the ancients themselves did not know whence this appellation arose. He refers therefore to the scholiasts, and to Suidas, v. Περσικός ὄρνις, p. 102, whose words have been copied by Phavorinus into his dictionary, p. 598; and he supposes, with Suidas, that the similarity of the cock’s comb to the Persian covering for the head gave occasion to the name. But the passage quoted from Athenæus assigns a much more probable reason.] in two places calls the domestic cock a Persian bird. It is proved by more modern accounts, that this species of fowl is at present found wild in the East Indies and many neighbouring countries. Sonnerat[1170 - Voy. aux Indes Or. ii. p. 117, where there is also a figure of the wild fowls.] found them in Hindostan; and they were seen by Cook and by Dampier on Pulo Condor and many islands of the South Sea. According to the testimony of Gemelli Careri, they were indigenous in the Philippine islands, and according to Morolla in the kingdom of Congo. That they are still found wild in Georgia is asserted by Reineggs[1171 - Reineggs Beschreibung des Kaukasus, 1797, 8vo, p. 69.]. The account therefore of the Greeks, that they obtained domestic fowls from Persia, may be admitted; but as in cock-fights one Persian overcame another, how could these convey the idea of a victory of the Greeks over the Persians? Is the object, then, as stated by Lucian and Ælian not sufficient and intelligible?
That cock-fighting, in the course of time, became a favourite pastime among the people, is proved by the frequent mention which is made of it in various authors. Pliny says[1172 - Lib. x. c. 7.] that it was exhibited annually at Pergamus, in the same manner as combats of gladiators. In this city, according to Petronius[1173 - Cap. 86.], a boy was promised a fighting-cock; and therefore it appears that boys kept cocks there for this pastime. Æschines reproaches Timarchus with spending the whole day in gaming and cock-fighting. Plato[1174 - De Legibus, l. vii.] complains, that not only boys but grown-up persons, instead of labouring, bred birds for fighting, and employed their whole time in such idle amusements.
Cock-fights were represented also by the Greeks on coins and on cut stones. That the Dardani had them on their coins we are told by Pollux[1175 - Onomast. ix. 84.]; and this seems to prove that these people were as fond of that sport as their neighbours of Pergamus. Mr. Pegge caused engravings to be made of two gems in the collection of Sir William Hamilton, on one of which is seen a cock in the humble attitude of defeat, with its head hanging down, and another in the attitude of victory, with an ear of corn in its bill as the object of contest. On the other stone two cocks are fighting, while a mouse carries away the ear of corn for the possession of which they had quarrelled; a happy emblem of our law-suits, in which the greater part of the property in dispute falls to the lawyers and attorneys. Two cocks in the attitude of fighting are represented also on a lamp found in Herculaneum[1176 - Antich. di Ercolano, tom. viii. Lucerne, p. 63. More engravings of coins with similar impressions may be found in Haym. Thes. Brit. i. pp. 213, 234, in Agostini Gem. P. i. p. 199, and in Gorleus, P. i. 51, and 114, also P. ii. 246. Frölich Notit. Numism. p. 81. A single cock may often have been the emblem of vigilance.].
That the Greeks employed various means to increase the irritability and courage of fighting-cocks is beyond all doubt. Besides the circumstance already mentioned in regard to the females, they gave them also food which produced nearly the same effect as opium does in India, and as brandy did some years ago on the European armies. Dioscorides[1177 - Lib. iv. cap. 36.] and Pliny[1178 - Lib. xxii. cap. 21, sect. 30: “perdices et gallinaceos pugnaciores fieri putant, in cibum eorum additis.” This affords a further proof that partridges also were made to fight.] ascribe this effect to a plant which they call adiantum. The former says it was given to game-cocks and quails, and the latter that it was given to game-cocks and partridges, to incite them to fight. Garlick, allium, was employed also, as we are told by Xenophon, not only for game-cocks but also for horses and soldiers. That the Greeks, however, like the English at present, armed their cocks with steel spurs, in order to render their battles more bloody, is denied by Pegge; though the contrary seems to be proved by a passage in Aristophanes, now become a proverb, and the remarks of the scholiast[1179 - Aves, 760: αἶρε πλῆκτρον εἰ μάχει: tolle calcar si pugnas. See what has been said in regard to this proverb by Suidas, and by Erasmus in his Adagia.]. As the English procure the strongest and best fighting-cocks from other countries, and often from Germany, through Hamburg, the Greeks, in the like manner, obtained foreign game-cocks for the same purpose[1180 - The most celebrated breeds are mentioned by Columella, viii. 2. – Plin. x. 21. – Geopon. xvi. 3, 30.].
Why the Romans showed more fondness for quail-fighting than for cock-fighting I do not know; but it is certain that they had not the latter, or at any rate only seldom and at a late period, which appears to be very singular, as they began then more and more to imitate the Greeks. Varro mentions the breeds which were chiefly sought for in Greece; but he adds, that though they might be good for fighting, they were not fit for breeding[1181 - Varro, iii. 9.]. Had the breeding of game-cocks been an employment, he would have spoken in a different manner. Columella also ridicules the breeding of these cocks, as a Grecian custom, and prefers the native race to all others. Eustathius, in the place already quoted, says expressly that the Romans preferred quails to game-cocks; yet in later times we find mention among them of cock-fighting, as has been before remarked.
There were cocks in England in the time of Julius Cæsar[1182 - De Bello Gallico, lib. v. 12.]; but it is said that they were kept there merely for pleasure, and not used as food. The latter part of this account is not improbable. The inhabitants of the Pelew Islands, we are told, eat only the eggs of their hens, and not the flesh. But the question, how old cock-fighting is in England, cannot be determined. Pegge says, the oldest information which he found on this subject was in the Description of the City of London by William Fitz-Stephens, who lived in the reign of Henry II., and died in 1191[1183 - “Præterea quotannis die, quæ dicitur carnivale (ut a puerorum ludis incipiamus, omnes enim pueri fuimus) scholarum singuli pueri suos apportant magistro suo gallos gallinaceos pugnatores, et totum illud antemeridanum datur ludo puerorum vacantium spectare in scholis suorum pugnas gallorum.” I have transcribed these words from the first edition of this old topography, which is entitled A Survey of London, written in the year 1598, by John Stow … with an appendix containing Libellum de situ et nobilitate Londini, written by William Fitzstephen. Lond. 1599, 4to, p. 480. Stow translates the word Carnivale by Shrove Tuesday.]. This writer relates that every year on Shrove Tuesday the boys at school brought their game-cocks to the master, and the whole forenoon was devoted to cock-fighting, for the amusement of the pupils. The theatre or cock-pit, therefore, was in the school-house, and the pupils seem to have had the direction of it. To this information I can add, that cock-fighting in France was forbidden by a council in 1260, on account of some mischief to which it had given rise[1184 - Du Cange, Glossarium. This council, as I conjecture, was held in the town of Copriniacum in diocesi Burdegalensi, which, as some think, was Cognac.].
This pastime has been sometimes forbidden even in England, as was the case under Edward III. and Henry VIII.; also in the year 1569, and even later; but it was nevertheless retained to a late period. Even Henry VIII. himself instituted fights of this kind; and a writer worthy of credit relates, that James I. took great delight in them[1185 - See Maitland’s London, and Stow’s Survey, by Strype, i. p. 302. edit. 1754.]. In modern times this cruel amusement has been carried beyond all bounds; so that the cock-fights in China[1186 - Bell’s Travels, p. 303.], Persia[1187 - Tavernier.], Malacca[1188 - Dampier. Also the Gentleman’s Mag. 1770, p. 564.], and America[1189 - Wafer, p. 118.], are nothing in comparison of those called the battle-royal and the Welsh main. In the former a certain number of cocks are let loose to fight, and when they have destroyed each other, the survivor is accounted the victor, and obtains the prize. In the latter kind of battle, sixteen pair of cocks, for example, being pitted against each other, the sixteen conquerors are made to fight again; the eight of these which are victors, must fight a third time; and the four remaining a fourth time, till at length the two last conquerors terminate, by a fifth contest, this murderous game, after thirty-one cocks have successively butchered each other amidst the noisy exultation of the spectators, who however make a pretence to the character of magnanimity.
[Cock-fighting is one of the chief amusements throughout the East Indies and China, and it is a fashionable pastime for ladies in Peru. The spot on which the cock-pit Royal, which was built in the reign of Charles II., existed, is now used for the meetings of the members of Her Majesty’s Privy Council. The custom of cock-throwing, that is, of throwing sticks at a cock exposed at a stake and which was practised in this country at Shrovetide, is supposed to have originated during the war with France in the reign of Edward III., and to have been considered a mark of hatred and contempt for the French people, of whom that bird was the national emblem; but the conjecture rests upon no solid authority and must be regarded as mere legend.
Cock-fighting is now forbidden and punishable by law in Great Britain, and every attempt is made to prevent this and other similar barbarous sports and to convict the offenders, by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.]
SALTPETRE. GUNPOWDER. AQUAFORTIS
In examining the question, whether Theophrastus, Pliny, and in general the ancient Greeks and Romans, were acquainted with our saltpetre, or at what period it became known, I shall perhaps meet with as little success as those who have preceded me in the same research[1190 - To this subject belong the following works: – Ars Magna Artilleriæ, Auct. Cas. Siomienowicz. Amst. 1650, fol. p. 61. The author thinks that the nitrum of the ancients is not at present known.Natural History of Nitre, by W. Clarke. Lond. 1670, 8vo. It is here said that the nitrum of the ancients was impure saltpetre, and that the latter is produced from the former by purification.G. C. Schelhameri de Nitro, cum veterum, tum nostro commentatio, Amst. 1709, 8vo, contains good philological observations, particularly in regard to the period, but leaves the question undetermined.Saggi sul ristabilimento dell’ antica arte de’ Greci e Romani pittori, del Sig. Doct. Vin. Requeno. Parma, 1787, 2 tomi in 8vo, ii. pp. 95, 131: a learned but diffuse work. He thinks that the nitrum of the ancients was our saltpetre; and what others consider as proofs of its being mineralized alkali, he understands as indicating alkalized saltpetre. I am not, however, convinced. Before I ascribe to the ancients a knowledge of our saltpetre, I must be shown in their writings properties of their nitrum sufficient to satisfy me that it was the same substance.Commentat. de nitro Plinii, in J. D. Michaelis commentationes. Bremæ 1784, 4to. The author only illustrates the account of Pliny, and states what, according to his opinion, we are to understand in it in regard to alkali, and what in regard to our saltpetre.]. I shall therefore be satisfied if competent judges allow that I have contributed anything new that can tend to illustrate the subject.
Our saltpetre, which is commonly called nitrum, and sometimes, though more rarely, sal nitræ, is a neutral salt composed of a peculiar acid, named the acid of saltpetre or nitric acid, and that alkali called potash. The characters by which it is most readily distinguished from other salts are its cooling taste, its fusibility when exposed to a small degree of heat, and in particular its so-called deflagration; that is, the property it has when placed in the fire, or on an ignited body, or when melted in a crucible, with a combustible substance, of suddenly bursting into a very bright flame, by which it loses its acid, and nothing remains but a carbonate of potash. The principal use of it is in making gunpowder, and for the preparation of that acid known under the name of aquafortis[1191 - [Since the discovery of the immense deposits of nitrate of soda in Peru, this salt, from its being much cheaper, has replaced the nitrate of potash in the manufacture of aquafortis, but it is not adapted to the making of gunpowder owing to its deliquescent property.]], which is employed in various ways.
Native saltpetre is so rare, that Cronstedt was not acquainted with it. At present, however, it is known to occur in the East Indies, in the lower part of Italy, also in Portugal[1192 - I found the account of the Portuguese saltpetre in Mémoires Instructifs pour un Voyageur. The author of this work was the well-known Theodore king of Corsica.], Spain, America, and some other countries[1193 - More accounts of native saltpetre may be found in Recueil de Mémoires sur la Formation du Salpetre. Par les Commissaires de l’Academie. Paris, 1776, 8vo. Del Nitro Minerale Memoria dell’ ab. Fortis, 1787, 8vo.]. But almost all the saltpetre obtained in Europe is produced partly by nature and partly by art. The putrefaction of organic bodies gives rise, under certain circumstances, to nitric acid, which in general combines with calcareous earth wherever it finds it, and forms the so-called earthy saltpetre. This is decomposed by potash, and the latter uniting with the acid forms common saltpetre. Sometimes also it is found that the nitric acid, instead of being united with calcareous earth, is combined with soda, which produces the so-called cubic saltpeter[1194 - The first, or one of the first, who was acquainted with and made known the cubic saltpetre, was professor John Bohn of Leipsic, in the Acta Eruditorum, 1683, p. 410; but with more precision in his Dissertat. Chymico-Physicæ, Lips. 1696, 8vo, p. 36.]. Both these saline substances, but the earthy more frequently than the cubic, are often found on effloresced walls; and both are then comprehended under the common names of Mauersalz or Mauerbeschlag, sal murale.
This efflorescence on walls was observed, in all probability, at a very early period, especially as it is produced in many parts in great abundance, and as it makes itself perceptible by the decay of walls, which it seems to corrode. It is the plague or leprosy of houses mentioned in the Mosaic code of laws. As the ancients were so much inclined to expect medicinal virtue in all natural bodies, there is reason to think that they soon collected and made trial of this saline incrustation. That this indeed was actually the case, and that they gave the name of nitrum to this saline mass, may be proved from their writings. Their nitrum, however, must have been exceedingly various in its properties. For this incrustation is not always calcareous saltpetre; it is often soda[1195 - [It is scarcely necessary to inform the reader that the author understands the soda of commerce, which is a carbonate of soda, and not the hydrated or caustic soda of chemists.]], mixed with more or less calcareous earth; and sometimes it consists of salts of sulphuric acid. In modern times, on closer examination, other salts of nitric acid have been found in the incrustation of walls, such as flaming saltpetre or nitrate of ammonia, bitter saltpetre or nitrate of magnesia; but of these no mention can be expected in the works of the ancients.
Substances so different ought not indeed to have been all named nitrum; but before natural history began to be formed into a regular system, mankind in general fell into an error directly contrary to that committed at present. Objects essentially different were comprehended under one name, if they any how corresponded with each other even in things accidental. Whereas at present every variety, however small, obtains a distinct appellation; because many wish to have the pleasure, if not of forming new species, at any rate of giving new names. The elephant and rhinoceros were formerly called oxen; the sable and ermine were named mice, and the ostrich was distinguished by the appellation of sparrow. In the like manner, calcareous saltpetre and alkali might be called nitrum. The ancients, however, gave to their nitrum some epithets, but they seem to have been used only to denote uncommon varieties.
Now, as the ancients were not acquainted with any accurate method of separating and distinguishing salts, it needs excite no wonder that they should ascribe to their nitrum properties which could not possibly be united in a salt, and much less exist in our saltpetre. But as they were neither acquainted with aquafortis nor manufactured gunpowder, and as no particular use of calcareous saltpetre was known, the nitrum most valuable to them must have been that which consisted chiefly of soda, and which consequently could be employed in washing, in painting, and in glass-making.
It is well known that in warm countries this alkali effloresces here and there from the earth, particularly in a dry soil, and even in such quantity as to be employed in commerce. Hence it may be readily comprehended why this effloresced salt, which is very often mixed with common salt, obtained the name of nitrum.
The important discovery, that a similar salt, having the like properties, and applicable to the same uses, named at present soda, may be obtained from the ashes of certain plants, was first made, in my opinion, by the ancient Egyptians or Arabians[1196 - [Crude soda or kelp was formerly manufactured to a very large extent in the Highlands, by burning the sea-weed, but since the tax has been taken off salt, most of the soda of British commerce is made by decomposing this with chalk and some carbonaceous matter.]]. This salt also, at least by the Greeks, was named nitrum, or considered as a species of it. By the incineration of the plants this salt was rendered slightly caustic; and it then became moist in the air, and deliquesced when not preserved in very close vessels. It was therefore like those salts which are obtained, in the same manner, from the ashes of all other plants; though the latter are essentially different from the former, and in the course of time obtained the peculiar appellation of potash or pearlash. One can hardly be surprised that the ancients were not able to distinguish soda from potash, especially as they were both obtained from vegetable ashes.
But were the ancients, under the ambiguous name of nitrum, acquainted with our saltpetre? There is certainly reason to think that it became known to them by lixiviating earths impregnated with salts. There are, as already said, not only in India but also in Africa, and particularly in Egypt, earths which, without the addition of ashes or potash, give real saltpetre, like that of the rubbish-hills on the road from new to old Cairo[1197 - In like manner, a heap of dung covered with earth is lixiviated, and the result, without the addition of ashes, used as saltpetre.], and like the earth in some parts of Spain. It is a knowledge only of this natural kind of saltpetre, which required no artificial composition, that can be allowed to the ancients, as it does not appear by their writings that they were sufficiently versed in chemistry to prepare the artificial kind used at present.
But even admitting that they had our saltpetre, where and by what means can we be convinced of it? Is it to be expected that any of the before-mentioned characters or properties of this salt should occur in their writings? They neither made aquafortis nor gunpowder; and they seem scarcely to have had any occasion or opportunity to discover its deflagration and the carbonization thereby effected, or, when observed, to examine and describe it. No other use of our saltpetre which could properly announce this phenomenon has yet been known. How then can it be ascertained that under the term nitrum they sometimes meant our saltpetre?
Those inclined to believe too little rather than too much, who cannot be satisfied with mere conjectures or probabilities, but always require full proof, will acknowledge with me, that the first certain accounts of our saltpetre cannot be expected much before the invention of aquafortis and gunpowder. It deserves also to be remarked, that the real saltpetre, as soon as it became known, was named also nitrum; but, by way of distinction, either sal nitrum, or sal nitri, or sal petræ. The first appellation, from which our ancestors made salniter, was occasioned by an unintelligible passage of Pliny, which I shall afterwards point out. The two other names signify, like sal tartari, sal succini, a salt which was not nitrum but obtained from nitrum. Sal-nitri, therefore, or salniter, was that salt which, according to the representation of the ancients, was separated by art from nitrum, yet was essentially different from the nitrum or soda commonly in use. Biringoccio says expressly, that the artificial nitrum, for the sake of distinction, was named, not nitrum, but sal nitrum.
The name nitrum is of great antiquity, and seems to have been conveyed from Egypt and Palestine to Greece, and thence to Italy and every part of Europe. For it is evidently the neter mentioned by the prophet Jeremiah, chap. ii. ver. 22; and which occurs also in the Proverbs of Solomon, chap. xxv. ver. 20. But whether the name nitrum, as Jerome says[1198 - The passage of Jerome relating to Proverbs, xxv. 20, I here insert entire, because I shall often have occasion to employ it: – “Nitrum a Nitria provincia, ubi maxime nasci solet, nomen accepit. Nee multum a salis Ammoniaci specie distat. Nam sicut salem in litore maris fervor solis conficit, durando in petram aquas marinas, quas major vis ventorum, vel ipsius maris fervor in litoris ulteriora projecerit; ita in Nitria, ubi æstate pluviæ prolixiores tellurem infundunt, adest ardor sideris tantus, quod ipsas aquas pluviales per latitudinem arenarum concoquat in petram; salis quidem vel glaciei aspectui simillimam; sed nil gelidi rigoris, nil salsi saporis habentem, quæ tamen, juxta naturam salis, in caumate durare, et in nubilos, aere fluere ac liquefieri solet. Hanc indigenæ sumentes servant, et ubi opus extiterit, pro lomento utuntur. Unde Judæo peccanti dicit propheta Jeremias: Si laveris te nitro, et multiplicaveris tibi herbam borith, maculata es in iniquitate tua, dicit Dominus Deus. Crepitat autem in aqua quomodo calx viva; et ipsum quidem disperit, sed aquam lavationi habilem reddit; cujus natura cui sit apta figuræ, cernens Solomon ait: Acetum in nitro, qui cantat carmina cordi pessimo. Acetum quippe si mittatur in nitrum, protinus ebullit.”], be derived from the Egyptian province Nitria, whence it was exported in great abundance, or the name of the province was derived from nitrum, is a question of little importance in regard to this research. Nitron is mentioned by Herodotus, where he describes the Egyptian method of embalming dead bodies[1199 - Herodot. ii. cap. 86 et 87.]; by some of the Greeks the word was written and pronounced litron. In the same manner people say nympha and lympha. In order to avoid confusion, I shall here call the nitrum of the ancients nitrum, and the nitrum of the mineralogists saltpetre.
In the course of time men became acquainted with the purer, more useful, and cheaper mineral alkali which was furnished, under the name of soda, by the Moors and inhabitants of the southern countries, who had learned the method of preparing it. The vegetable alkali also was always more and more manufactured in woody districts, as an article in great request, and sold under the name of potash, cineres clavellati. All knowledge of the impure alkali from the incrustation of walls was then lost; and as there was no further need of guarding against confusion, it was not longer thought worth while to name saltpetre sal nitri: it was called nitrum; and the oldest signification of this word being forgotten, it was admitted without further examination, that the nitrum of the ancients was nothing else than our saltpetre.
In the sixteenth century some learned Europeans, while travelling through the East, heard the name natrum given to the mineral alkali which was then exported as an article of commerce, and introduced in their works this transformation of the ancient word nitrum. This appellation was employed by the systematic mineralogists, who, giving themselves little trouble about the original meaning of words, and taking care only to avoid confusion, called the mineral alkali also natrum, and applied the name of nitrum to saltpetre. As far as I know at present, it was first stated by Peter Bellon and Prosper Alpinus[1200 - Histor. Ægypti Naturalis iii. 2. See also Forskäl Flora Ægyptiaco-Arabica, p. xlv.], that the mineral alkali was in the East called natrum. The former returned in 1549, and the latter was still in Cairo in 1580.
This word was adopted in mineralogy by Linnæus, in the year 1736, as the name of a species, in which he comprehended for the first time the alkaline incrustation found on walls. In this he is followed by Wallerius, who includes also the mineral alkali from the East. Afterwards the word natrum was employed in the same sense by all mineralogists.
It deserves here to be remarked, that Boyle had even examined and determined the difference between the fixed and volatile alkalies; but that mineralogists and chemists, till the latest periods, believed that all fixed alkali arose, or at least was obtained, by the incineration of plants. The difference between the mineral and vegetable alkalies was first defined, in a proper manner, by the exertion of the German chemists Pott, Model and Marggraf[1201 - [Duhamel proved soda to be distinct from potash in 1736, Marggraf confirmed it in 1758.]]; especially after the last had proved, in the year 1758, that the basis of common salt was not, as had before been generally believed, an alkaline earth, but a fixed alkali, to which, because it was in many of its properties different from the fixed vegetable alkali, he gave the name of fixed mineral alkali. Soon after this substance was discovered in mineral springs; and Model and others have shown that it is not essentially different from that which in the East is called natrum.
It is singular, and yet may be accounted for, that since that time many have spoken of the nitrum and natrum of the ancients, though they are only different pronunciations of the same word; and natrum is never found in the works of the Greeks or the Romans, and not even in writings of the middle ages.
But if the greater part of what I have here said should be considered only as conjecture, it must nevertheless be acknowledged that it is deduced from the nature of the thing; and when impartially compared with what we read in the ancients, the latter I hope will be better understood than it hitherto has been; the impropriety of many readings will become apparent, and the truth of this conjecture be admitted.
Were I here to relate everything that we read of nitrum, in order to compare it with nature and to examine it thoroughly, I should be obliged to extend this article to a greater length than might be agreeable to the reader. I shall therefore give only the principal proofs of my assertion, premising, that doubts which might be excited by single passages not here mentioned, will, on a closer comparison, vanish without my assistance. But I maintain that those who wish to explain the old names of natural objects must relate everything said of them, and not that alone which is favourable to their opinion, and which may be often contradicted by what was purposely or accidentally concealed. The first part of such an examination is always a careful collection from the writings of the ancients of all the predicates of the natural object, the systematic name of which one is endeavouring to prove.
There is reason however to conjecture, that the ancients, in the history of their impure nitre, the manner of obtaining which the Romans at least had no opportunity themselves of seeing, for Pliny says expressly that it was not procured in Italy, fell into many errors and mistakes, which at present cannot all be explained.
Hence it happened that the ancients did not understand the art of purifying the salt which they obtained from minerals; and therefore they were obliged to use it in the same impure state in which they found it. On this account they considered each natural mixture as a peculiar kind; gave to the greater part of them, or those most useful, particular names; and of these recommended for different purposes those which, according to their purity or mixture, or according to other circumstances, were the most convenient. It is not probable that all these varieties could be again found out or defined; and it seems to be of little importance, when it is known that the names denote nothing more than the varieties of a mineral.
In this examination it is to be regretted that the book of Theophrastus, in which he expressly treated of nitrum, has not been preserved. But it may be believed, even without the testimony of Pliny, that he was one of the most accurate and acute naturalists among the ancients, and that he gave the best account of this substance[1202 - Lib. xxxi. cap. 10.]. It must, however, be admitted that Pliny thoroughly understood this author, and gave a correct extract from him, and that the transcriber fell into no mistake.
That the nitrum of the ancients was an alkali more or less impure, but not saltpetre, has been long admitted by those who had the least knowledge of mineralogy, as well as by the most sagacious physicians. The grounds for this opinion, as far as I have yet learned, are as follows: more indeed might be found, but these are sufficient to afford a complete proof. Galen, a cautious writer, says that nitrum was in general burnt, by which means its effects were strengthened[1203 - De Simplic. Med. Facult. ix. Dioscorides also, v. 131, speaks as if it had been well known that nitrum was commonly burnt.]. Had it been saltpetre, it is impossible that the ancients should not in burning it have observed its deflagration, and this property is too remarkable not to have been mentioned. But nothing is to be found that can with any probability be supposed to allude to it.
But should it be admitted without any grounds that it was not an alkali but saltpetre which they burnt, it must certainly have been carbonized; for a burning body may easily have fallen into the crucible, and in general nitrum seems to have been burnt in an open fire, like our lime, because Pliny, speaking of the Egyptian, considers the contrary as somewhat uncommon. Physicians then, at any rate, must have observed, that a body very different both in its appearance and effects was produced from saltpetre by burning, but which could not be used for any other purpose than that salt. Of this however we do not find the least intimation.
But nitrum was undoubtedly soda, and on that account when burnt must have become more caustic as well as stronger in most of its effects, and in this respect similar to potash, since [owing to impurities] it in the same manner became moist and deliquesced in the air. What Pliny relates of the Egyptian nitrum becomes then intelligible. The latter, he says, was transported in pitched vessels, because it would otherwise have deliquesced; and he afterwards adds, that it was burnt before it was sent off. Had he known that the latter was the cause and the former the effect, he would have mentioned the latter first; but his whole extract, in regard to nitre, is written in general without order. The vessels, no doubt, were of clay; but whether he means in what he adds that they were not burnt but only baked in the sun, or that before they were filled they were completely dried in the sun, has been determined by no commentator. To me the latter is the more probable. Pliny also mentions another circumstance in regard to the burning of the Egyptian nitrum; namely, that it must be done in a close vessel, otherwise it would decrepitate or fly off. This is perfectly intelligible, when it is considered that it contained a great deal of common salt, which alone possessed the property of decrepitating; and it is well known in mineralogy that native soda, and even that which in modern times has been introduced into our collections from Tripoli, and of which I have in my possession a specimen, contains common salt[1204 - Phil. Transactions, 1771, vol. lxi. p. 567.], and often in cubic crystals. Pliny had just reason to add, that nitrum otherwise does not properly decrepitate. The ancients were well acquainted with the resemblance of their nitrum to lime, and especially of that which was burnt. On this account, because the Egyptian was exported after it had been burnt, it could easily be mixed with quicklime, or, as Pliny says, be adulterated. But the proof which he gives he does not seem to have thoroughly understood. The Egyptian must at all times have been caustic (pungens) even without lime; but that which was mixed with lime could not so speedily or completely dissolve on the tongue as that which was pure, and left behind it more earth. What he says of a test by the smell, I cannot understand in any other manner than that burnt lime, when moistened with water, diffused that disagreeable vapour observed in apartments the walls of which have been newly plastered; though when the quantity is small this is hardly perceptible.
If I understand Theophrastus[1205 - De Igne, p. 435, ed. Heinsii, where he speaks of the heat produced in lime by slaking it. Aristotle also mentions together κονία and νίτρον, on account of similar properties. Problemat. i. 39. ed. Septalii, p. 71.] properly, he seems to say, that if nitrum be burnt as soon as it is dug up, it communicates heat to water in the same manner as lime. It may here be seen how great a resemblance the ancients found between their nitrum, alkaline earth and lime.