Part 9

That the security of the rider necessarily depended upon the safety of the animal he rode, cannot be questioned. Hence, then, we do not wonder to observe, that the sagacious Aristotle and Pliny should remark upon the covering placed upon the feet of those animals of draught and burden. From what these authors have said, however, we dare not conclude that the feet of horses or camels were faced or shod with iron: but it should rather seem that in time of war, or on long journeys, the feet of both kinds of beasts were prepared with such species of shoes as the common people wore, and which were generally made of strong ox-leather. We are told that when the hoofs of cattle, particularly oxen, had sustained any injury or hurt, they were furnished with shoes made of Spanish or African broom, with which linen is often manufactured in the south of France and Italy; also shoes of some of the plants of the hemp kind, which were woven or plaited together. Although these may be considered as only a species of surgical bandages with regard to oxen; but such shoes were particularly given to mules, which in days of old were employed much more than at present for riding; and from some instances of immoderate extravagance in people of rank, it appears that they had for their animals very costly shoes of some of the most valuable metals. Nero, when he undertook short journeys, was drawn always by mules shod with silver, and those of his wife were shod with gold.

The circumstance being barely mentioned, without any particular detail, we are anxious to afford any certain information on the mode in which those shoes were constructed. From a passage in Dio Cassius, we have reason to believe that it was only the upper part of the shoe that was made of those costly metals, or that they were plaited from thin slips.

Xenophon relates that a certain people in Asia were in the habit of drawing socks over the feet of their horses, when the snow lay deep on the ground. The Kamschatkian employs the same means to preserve the feet of his dogs, which draw his sledge, or hunt the seals upon the ice. Those species of shoes, according to Captain Cook, are so ingeniously made as to be bound, and at the same time to admit the claws of the animal through them.

From a passage found in Suetonius, we may infer that the Roman horse-shoes were put on in the manner we have mentioned; for that author says, that the coachman of Vespasian once stopped to put on the shoes of his mules: this being the case, the probability appears pretty certain, that in deep roads and moist soils the animals must have frequently lost their shoes.

Artemedorus speaks of a shod horse, and uses the same kind of expression whilst speaking of other cattle. Winkelman has described a cut stone in the collection of Baron Stosch, on which is represented the figure of a man holding one foot of a horse, whilst another, kneeling, is employed in fastening a shoe.

That it was not usual to shoe the war-horse, may be gathered from this,--when Mithridates was besieging Cyzicus, he was obliged to send his cavalry to Bythnia, because the hoofs of the horses were entirely spoiled and worn out. Diodorus Siculus informs us, that Alexander, in his expedition, proceeded with uninterrupted marches, until the feet of his horses were entirely broken and destroyed. A like instance occurs in Cinnamus, where the cavalry were obliged to be left behind, because the horses had suffered considerably in their hoofs, to which he adds, they were often liable. Hence it may, perhaps, appear, that such horse-shoes as are now in use, were unknown to the ancients; and Chardiu gives no representation of them in ancient Persian antiquities. In the grave of Childeric, a northern chieftain and King of France, was discovered a piece of iron, which the learned antiquarians who saw it, pronounced, from that portion of it which the rust had left, to have been an old horse-shoe; they saw, or thought they saw, four distinct apertures for nails on each side; but whilst they were endeavouring to remove the corrosive excrescence of rust, to ascertain with more certainty, it broke under their hands. The reason why we mentioned this here is, that if the relic discovered was really a horse-shoe, it must have been one of the most ancient specimens known; because, we find that monarch died in the year 481; his grave was discovered at Tournay in 1683. The occasion of his having a horse-shoe in his grave, was from the creed of his religion; the superstitious belief of the Scandinavians taught them to place implicit confidence in the power of this amulet, to prevent the ingress of evil spirits. The remains of this belief is even now often seen in the obscure streets of the British metropolis; and, indeed, throughout the country, where the mystic shoe frequently appears as the faithful guardian of the domestic threshold.

It is, we understand, the opinion of the French historian, Daniel, that, in the ninth century, horses were not shod always, but only in the time of frost, and on some other very particular occasions.

The practice of shoeing horses was introduced into England by William I. We are told that this monarch gave the city of Northampton as a fief to a certain person, one of his attendants, in consideration of his paying a certain sum yearly for the shoeing of horses. And it is also alleged, that Henry, or Hugh de Ferres, or de Ferrers, was the same person who held this fief on the above condition, and who was the ancestor of the family of that name, and who still bear six horse-shoes in their coat of arms. This was the person whom William entrusted to inspect his farriers.

We should not omit to observe, that it is remarked, that horse-shoes have been found, with other riding furniture, in the graves of some of the old inhabitants of Germany, and also in those of the Vandals in the North of Europe.

GUNPOWDER.

The express period when _nitrum_ was first discovered is extremely uncertain; but that this nitrum is an alkaline salt, there is little difficulty in proving. It has, indeed, been conjectured that it was a component part of the _Greek fire_, invented about the year 678, which has been generally believed to be the origin of gunpowder. From the oldest prescriptions which have been found, and which is said to be that given by the Princess Anna Commena, in which, however, only resin, sulphur, and oil are mentioned, saltpetre does not appear.

It is believed by an author very well qualified to form a judgment on the question, that the first certain account we have of saltpetre by that express name, occurs in the oldest account of the invention of gunpowder, which, according to him (Professor Beckmann) occurred in the thirteenth century. Dr. Rees, in his Cyclopedia, expressly says, about the year 1320; and that it was first used by the Venetians employed against the Genoese in 1380; also that it was first in Europe at a place now known as Chrogia, against Laurence de Medicis; and the last named authority adds, “That all Italy made complaint against it, as a contravention of the law of arms.” Dr. Rees gives the following recipe for its manufacture, without distinguishing the proportionate parts:--“A composition of nitre, sulphur, and charcoal, mixed together, and usually granulated.” He describes its effects by observing, that “it easily takes fire, and when fired, rarifies and expands with great vehemence by means of its elastic force;” also that “it may be made without _nitre_, by means of _marine acid_.”

We have two accounts preserved to us of the original of this invention. The first of which was given by our illustrious countryman, Roger Bacon, called the Wonderful Doctor, who died A. D. 1278; previous to which period, gunpowder must have existed. The other account is by Albertus Magnus, in a work published in 1612.

It is said to be doubted whether Albertus was the author of the book which bears his name; but that he, whoever he may have been, and Bacon, are presumed to have taken their information from the same identical source. About the period of the invention of gunpowder, it appears the art of making the Greek fire began to be lost. In the works of Roger Bacon, the term occurs three times. According to Casiri, the term _pulvis nitratus_, is to be found in an Arabic MS. the author of which existed about 1249. If the work of Geber, _De Investigatione Perfectionis_, be genuine, and if this writer lived, as has been thought, in the eighth century, it would be the oldest where saltpetre is mentioned, in a prescription for an _aqua solutiva_, which appears to be almost _aqua regia_.

We are inclined to believe, however, from various authorities, that gunpowder was invented in India, as it was proved in a paper read before the French National Institute, by M. Langles, that the Arabians obtained a knowledge of gunpowder from the Indians, who had been acquainted with it from the earliest periods. The use of it in war is said to have been prohibited them in their sacred books. It was employed in 690 at a battle near Mecca, by the Arabians. It was brought by the Saracens from Africa to the Europeans, who improved the preparation, and first discovered various ways of employing it in war. In no country could saltpetre and its various uses be more easily discovered than in India, where the soil is so rich in nitrous particles that nothing is necessary but lixiviation to obtain saltpetre; and where this substance is so abundant, that almost all the gunpowder used in different wars, with which European sovereigns have tormented themselves, burdened their subjects with intolerable taxes, and cursed the world from its invention--has been made from Indian saltpetre. Had not saltpetre been known previous to the thirteenth century, neither could gunpowder or aquafortis have existed; and for the best of all reasons, that neither of them could be made without saltpetre or nitre. But should it appear that this neutral salt was known in India long prior to that period, and used by Indians as well as Arabians before they were employed by Europeans, and considering the former to have practised chemistry previous to the latter; should this have been proved, perhaps a similar proof will necessarily await upon the articles aquafortis and gunpowder. Because if this affirmation be established, it will be discovered that Europeans knew nothing of aquafortis until after the Arabian chemists.

Probability appears to favour the idea, that at or about the twelfth century the accumulated number of consequents, from the improvement in European science, the arts we now possess were introduced into our catalogue, _i. e._, nitre, aquafortis, and gunpowder.

After the period that saltpetre became necessary to governments for the manufacture of gunpowder, they endeavoured to obtain it at a cheap rate; and for that purpose were guilty in some countries of the most violent and oppressive measures, intruding upon private property of every description to furnish it, hunting for the effervescence even in old walls, to the great annoyance of individuals. But after repeated acts of the most flagrant oppression from the public officers, and from farmers, to whom this iniquitous practice was entrusted, they could not procure a sufficiency; but were obliged to have recourse to traffic in India for that purpose.

GUNS.

That these dangerous weapons were not known in Europe previous to the introduction of gunpowder may be safely inferred; as without that substance their necessity or utility is wanting.

At first the construction of this machine was characterised by that awkward, rude, and cumbersome appearance which generally distinguished all inventions in their infancy; reminding us of those very rude instruments brought from the Sandwich Islands, and deposited in our Museum.

The first portable fire-arms were discharged by a match; in course of time this was fastened to a cock, for the greater security of the hand whilst discharging the piece. Afterwards a fire-stone was attached, screwed into a cock, with a steel plate before it, and fixed in a small wheel, which could be wound up by a key, affixed to the barrel. This fire-stone was not at first of a vitreous nature, like that now in use for striking fire, but a compact pyrites, long known as such, and called a fire-stone. As an instrument so furnished was often liable to miss fire, till a late period a match was still continued with the wheel; and it was not till a considerable time after that, instead of a friable pyrites, so much exposed to effloresce, a vitreous stone was affixed to the improvement of the lock, somewhat resembling our own gun-lock. But these progressive improvements advanced slowly, because as recently as the early part of the last century these clumsy contrivances were in use. During that period, those instruments were denominated by various names, chiefly German and Dutch, such as _buchse_, _hakenbuchse_, _arquebuss_, musket, martinet, pistol, &c. The first of these names arose from the oldest portable kind of fire-arms having a similarity to a box. There were long and short _buchse_, the latter of which were peculiar to cavalry; the longest kind also, from their resemblance to a pipe, were called in Germany, _rohr_.

Large pieces, which were conveyed on carriages, were called _Karren buchse_, from the action of conveyance. Soon afterwards cannon were introduced, at first called _canna_; now known as artillery. However, artillery-men, and others concerned in those employments, still use the terms previously mentioned. The hackenbuchse were so very large and unwieldy, that if carried in the hand, they could not be used manually alone; they were, therefore, supported by a post or stay, called a _bock_, because it had a forked end, somewhat resembling the horns of the buck, between which the piece was fixed by a hook projecting from the stock. There is still preserved in the Tower of London, an old _buchse_; a specimen of every species of our national arms may be seen in the same place.

From those terms before-mentioned, it would appear, that not only the English, but also the French, and most other European nations, took the names of their fire-arms.

It appears that pistols were first used in Germany; they had a wheel attached to them. Bellay mentions them in the year 1544, in the time of Francis I.; and under Henry II., the German horsemen were called _pistoliers_. Several historians think that the name came from Pistolia, in Tuscany, because there they were first made; and, if we might hazard an opinion, we think this conjecture right. Hence, although Germany might first have generally used them, we think they were an Italian invention.

Muskets are said to have received their name from either the French _mouchet_, or else from the Latin _muschetus_; however, we are of opinion that neither of these terms gave its original; and submit that it is derived from the Latin _muscarium_,--the fall of men being as sudden after the explosion of this deadly weapon, as the death of a fly after it is flapped by that instrument, which was common in the butcher’s shambles of ancient Rome.

Daniel proves they were known in France as early as the period of Francis I. Brandome, however, asserts they were introduced by the Duke of Alva--that cruel monster in human shape--that tool of a blood-thirsty tyrant--whose name has its full merit when it has eternal execration, as the exploits of that diabolical character in the Spanish Netherlands bear indubitable testimony: that wretch existed in 1507; and they were not known in France at that period, as Brandome endeavours to prove, or we should have had more intelligence handed down to posterity by the commentators of one who would so willingly have used such an instrument. The _lock_ is said to have been invented in the city of Nuremberg, in Germany, about 1517; but that cannot be considered as the lock of the present day, as even in Germany the fire-lock is known by the name of the French-lock, which certainly militates against the previous assertion, the one giving the name perhaps to the other.

Beckmann says, “In the history of the Brunswick military it is stated, that the soldiers of that Duchy first obtained flint-locks instead of match-locks in 1687. It has often been asserted,” he continues, “that fire-tubes which took fire of themselves were forbidden first in Bohemia and Moravia, and afterwards in the whole German empire, under a severe penalty, by the Emperor Maximilian I.; but I have not found any allusion to this circumstance in the different police laws of that emperor.”

That the first fire-stones were pyrites appears from various sources, and afterwards a vitreous kind of stone was introduced in its stead; this circumstance is said to have produced some kind of confusion, as in many instances the properties were applied to that stone which were related by the Germans of antiquity as belonging to pyrites. In Germany, this vitreous stone was called _vlint_; in Sweden and Denmark, _flinta_; and in England, _flint_. This appellation is of great antiquity.

Anciently, in Germany, as it appears from the song of Hildebrand, a metrical romance of very early date, that Hildebrand and Hudebrand, a father and son, and, at the moment, ignorant of their affinity, agreed to fight for each other’s armour; and it is said “They let fly their ashen spears with such force, that they stuck in the shields, and they thrust resounding axes of flint against each other, having uplifted their shields previously; but the Lady Ulta rushed in between them--‘I know the cross of gold,’ said she, ‘which I gave him for his shield; this is my Hildebrand. You, Hudebrand, sheath your sword; this is your father!’ Then she led both champions into the hall, and gave them meat and wine with many embraces.”

Besides these proofs that the ancient name of the stone was known in Germany by the appellation _vlint_--which species of stone may, perhaps, without hazarding the danger of error, be conceived to be the same which Zipporah, the wife of Moses, is represented to have used, in the 25th verse of the 4th chapter of Exodus: “Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said,--Surely a bloody husband thou art to me.” And it is added she said so, on account of the circumcision.

In addition to what has appeared, let us add, it cannot be doubted that the instrument fired by this stone first obtained for it, in Germany, the name of _vlint_; as the ancient name may, in general, be now lost, it is commonly called flint-stone. Those people acquainted with the northern, Scandinavian, and German antiquities, know that the knives employed in ancient sacrifices, and other sharp instruments, were made of this stone, as appears from the remains being yet discovered in old barrows, and between urns.

It is also presumed that the Ethiopian stone, mentioned as used by one of the Egyptian embalmers, first to open the body to get at the intestines, was a flint-stone. The soil being in some places siliceous or chalky, naturally produces such stones in common with that earth.

The flint is a stone indigenous in most European countries; they are commonly collected and manufactured by people whose occupation allows them much spare time. The easiest mode to shape them is with a species of pillow of saw-dust, or some other soft material, sown up in coarse cloth, held upon the knees, and with a hammer having a bevil edge, they may be broken into almost any form or size by those accustomed to the practice.

The great quantity of the material from whence they are composed allows for any waste which accident may produce. In several counties of England they are so plentiful, that they are the common material employed for mending the public roads. But we are informed that this is not the case in France, where, in time of war, the people were prohibited from exporting them. The Dutch are commonly large dealers in this article.

Flint is a large component in the manufacture of glass.

Gun flints are now, however, comparatively little used, as percussion caps are generally substituted, which act with more certainty, and require a great deal less trouble.

ASTRONOMY.

Not being greedy of delusion ourselves, neither would we lead others into error; but, on the contrary, are desirous to avoid all deception, as we may be considered over studious to give the most rational origin, and where we cannot get at the history of those objects which engage our attention--whenever this is uncertain we resort to nature, experience, and reason, and furnish the most correct explanation our contracted circle of information will permit. Whenever we discover the clue of history, we collect the most satisfactory detail our limits will afford us to insert. Guided by the preceding notions, and directed by those principles, we have endeavoured correctly to conceive, and faithfully to portray our own conceptions in the best manner our experience might enable us, to make a just distinction between metaphorical allusion and literal application; ever endeavouring to discriminate between serious assertion and studied fable.

We fully coincide with the just remark of the learned author of “Indian Antiquities,” who says “that in respect to the early ages of the world, all the remains of genuine history, except that contained in the sacred annals, is only to be obtained through the mazes of Mythology.”

It must be confessed, that to sift this grain of corn from the bushel of chaff with which it is surrounded, where every effort which the ingenuity of Greece could devise to render fable as current as truth, was resorted to, is no small task; that it requires the operation of the best exercised reason, and the assistance of extraordinary judgment, which is only to be attained through the medium of extensive experience and the exercise of clear and discriminative powers: then we pretend not to possess the best of possible acquisitions of this kind, but the best in our power, we have endeavoured to collect, and summoned to our assistance; and the value of our labours we will leave the public to judge.

If the application of observations like the preceding ever come _apropos_, surely they apply to the present article; since from the _sideral_ science, all the errors of an idolatrous race proceeded in the major part of the population of the ancient world: from thence also proceeded the most sublime imagery which embellishes the syren voice of poetic song, the grandest metaphors, and the sweetest allegories, which ornament the transendent eloquence of the most able rhetoricians of Greece and Rome; the fire of exquisitely natural and most noble allusions which enliven and embellish their historic pages. The sweetest philosophical explications also flowed from thence, which ornament the various immortal works of their most excellent poets, orators, historians, natural and moral philosophers; and, in brief, of every description of the sublimest genius of ancient Greece and Rome, in their most divine effusions.