Chapter 27

[49]"... non raro, ut nonnulli pyritae sunt, candida...." This is apparently the unknown substance mentioned above.[Pg 411][50]Onedrachmais about 3 ounces Troy per short ton. Threeunciaeare about 72 ounces 6 dwts. Troy per short ton.[51]In this section, which treats of the metallurgy ofplumbum candidum, "tin," the wordcandidumis very often omitted in the Latin, leaving onlyplumbum, which is confusing at times with lead. The black tin-stone,lapilli nigrihas been treated in a similar manner,lapilli(small stones) constantly occurring alone in the Latin. This has been rendered as "tin-stone" throughout, and the material prior to extraction of thelapilli nigrihas been rendered "tin-stuff," after the Cornish.[52]"... ex saxis vilibus, quae natura de diversa materia composuit." The Glossary givesgrindstein. Granite (?).[53]Historical Notes on Tin Metallurgy.The first appearance of tin lies in the ancient bronzes. And while much is written upon the "Bronze Age" by archæologists, we seriously doubt whether or not a large part of so-called bronze is not copper. In any event, this period varied with each race, and for instance, in Britain may have been much later than Egyptian historic times. The bronze articles of the IV Dynasty (from 3800 to 4700B.C.depending on the authority) place us on certain ground of antiquity. Professor Gowland (Presidential Address, Inst. of Metals, London, 1912) maintains that the early bronzes were the result of direct smelting of stanniferous copper ores, and while this may be partially true for Western Europe, the distribution and nature of the copper deposits do not warrant this assumption for the earlier scenes of human activity—Asia Minor, Egypt, and India. Further, the lumps of rough tin and also of copper found by Borlase (Tin Mining in Spain, Past and Present, London, 1897, p. 25) in Cornwall, mixed with bronze celts under conditions certainly indicating the Bronze Age, is in itself of considerable evidence of independent melting. To our mind the vast majority of ancient bronzes must have been made from copper and tin mined and smelted independently. As to the source of supply of ancient tin, we are on clear ground only with the advent of the Phœnicians, 1500-1000B.C., who, as is well known, distributed to the ancient world a supply from Spain and Britain. What the source may have been prior to this time has been subject to much discussion, and while some[Pg 412]slender threads indicate the East, we believe that a more local supply to Egypt, etc., is not impossible. The discovery of large tin fields in Central Africa and the native-made tin ornaments in circulation among the negroes, made possible the entrance of the metal into Egypt along the trade routes. Further, we see no reason why alluvial tin may not have existed within easy reach and have become exhausted. How quickly such a source of metal supply can be forgotten and no evidence remain, is indicated by the seldom remembered alluvial gold supply from Ireland. However, be these conjectures as they may, the East has long been the scene of tin production and of transportation activity. Among the slender evidences that point in this direction is that the Sanskrit term for tin iskastira, a term also employed by the Chaldeans, and represented in Arabic bykasdir, and it may have been the progenitor of the Greekcassiteros. There can be no doubt that the Phœnicians also traded with Malacca, etc., but beyond these threads there is little to prove the pre-western source. The strained argument of Beckmann (Hist. of Inventions, vol.II., p. 207) that thecassiterosof Homer and thebedilof the Hebrews was possibly not tin, and that tin was unknown at this time, falls to the ground in the face of the vast amount of tin which must have been in circulation to account for the bronze used over a period 2,000 years prior to those peoples. Tin is early mentioned in the Scriptures (NumbersXXXI, 22), being enumerated among the spoil of the Midianites (1200B.C.?), also Ezekiel (600B.C.,XXVII, 12) speaks of tin from Tarshish (the Phœnician settlement on the coast of Spain). According to Homer tin played considerable part in Vulcan's metallurgical stores. Even approximately at what period the Phœnicians began their distribution from Spain and Britain cannot be determined. They apparently established their settlements at Gades (Cadiz) in Tarshish, beyond Gibraltar, about 1100B.C.The remains of tin mining in the Spanish peninsula prior to the Christian Era indicate most extensive production by the Phœnicians, but there is little evidence as to either mining or smelting methods. Generally as to the technical methods of mining and smelting tin, we are practically without any satisfactory statement down to Agricola. However, such scraps of information as are available are those in Homer (see note on p.402), Diodorus, and Pliny.Diodorus says (V, 2) regarding tin in Spain: "They dig it up, and melt it down in the same way as they do gold and silver;" and again, speaking of the tin in Britain, he says: "These people make tin, which they dig up with a great deal of care and labour; being rocky, the metal is mixed with earth, out of which they melt the metal, and then refine it." Pliny (XXXIV, 47), in the well-known and much-disputed passage: "Next to be considered are the characteristics of lead, which is of two kinds, black and white. The most valuable is the white; the Greeks called itcassiteros, and there is a fabulous story of its being searched for and carried from the islands of Atlantis in barks covered with hides. Certainly it is obtained in Lusitania and Gallaecia on the surface of the earth from black-coloured sand. It is discovered by its great weight, and it is mixed with small pebbles in[Pg 413]the dried beds of torrents. The miners wash these sands, and that which settles they heat in the furnace. It is also found in gold mines, which are calledalutiae. A stream of water passing through detaches small black pebbles variegated with white spots, the weight of which is the same as gold. Hence it is that they remain in the baskets of the gold collectors with the gold; afterward, they are separated in acamillumand when melted become white lead."There is practically no reference to the methods of Cornish tin-working over the whole period of 2,000 years that mining operations were carried on there prior to the Norman occupation. From then until Agricola's time, a period of some four centuries, there are occasional references in Stannary Court proceedings, Charters, and such-like official documents which give little metallurgical insight. From a letter of William de Wrotham, Lord Warden of the Stannaries, in 1198, setting out the regulations for the impost on tin, it is evident that the black tin was smelted once at the mines and that a second smelting or refining was carried out in specified towns under the observation of the Crown Officials. In many other official documents there are repeated references to the right to dig turfs and cut wood for smelting the tin. Undernote 8, p. 282, we give some further information on tin concentration, and the relation of Cornish and German tin miners. Biringuccio (1540) gives very little information on tin metallurgy, and we are brought toDe Re Metallicafor the first clear exposition.As to the description on these pages it must be remembered that the tin-stone has been already roasted, thus removing some volatile impurities and oxidizing others, as described on page348. The furnaces and the methods of working the tin, here described, are almost identical with those in use in Saxony to-day. In general, since Agricola's time tin has not seen the mechanical and metallurgical development of the other metals. The comparatively small quantities to be dealt with; the necessity of maintaining a strong reducing atmosphere, and consequently a mild cold blast; and the comparatively low temperature demanded, gave little impetus to other than crude appliances until very modern times.[Pg 419][54]Aureo nummo. German Translation givesreinschen gülden, which was the equivalent of about $1.66, or 6.9 shillings. The purchasing power of money was, however, several times as great as at present.[Pg 420][55]In the following descriptions of iron-smelting, we have three processes described; the first being the direct reduction of malleable iron from ore, the second the transition stage then in progress from the direct to indirect method by way of cast-iron; and the third a method of making steel by cementation. The first method is that of primitive iron-workers of all times and all races, and requires little comment. A pasty mass was produced, which was subsequently hammered to make it exude the slag, the hammered mass being the ancient "bloom." The second process is of considerable interest, for it marks one of the earliest descriptions of working iron in "a furnace similar to a blast furnace, but much wider and higher." This original GermanStückofenor high bloomery furnace was used for making "masses" of wrought-iron under essentially the same conditions as its progenitor the forge—only upon a larger scale. With high temperatures, however, such a furnace would, if desired, yield molten metal, and thus the step to cast-iron as a preliminary to wrought-iron became very easy and natural, in fact Agricola mentions above that if the iron is left to settle in the furnace it becomes hard. The making of malleable iron by subsequent treatment of the cast-iron—the indirect method—originated in about Agricola's time, and marks the beginning of one of those subtle economic currents destined to have the widest bearing upon civilization. It is to us uncertain whether he really understood the double treatment or not. In the above paragraph he says from ore "once or twice smelted they make iron," etc., and inDe Natura Fossilium(p. 339) some reference is made to pouring melted iron, all of which would appear to be cast-iron. He does not, however, describe the 16th Century method of converting cast into wrought iron by way of in effect roasting the pig iron to eliminate carbon by oxidation, with subsequent melting into a "ball" or "mass." It must be borne in mind that puddling for this purpose did not come into use until the end of the 18th Century. A great deal of discussion has arisen as to where and at what time cast-iron was made systematically, but without satisfactory answer; in any event, it seems to have been in about the end of the 14th Century, as cast cannon began to appear about that time. It is our impression that the whole of this discussion on iron inDe Re Metallicais an abstract from Biringuccio, who wrote 15 years earlier, as it is in so nearly identical terms. Those interested will find a translation of Biringuccio's statement with regard to steel in Percy's Metallurgy of Iron and Steel, London, 1864, p. 807.Historical Note on Iron Smelting.The archæologists' division of the history of racial development into the Stone, Bronze, and Iron Ages, based upon objects found in tumuli, burial places, etc., would on the face of it indicate the prior discovery of copper metallurgy over iron, and it is generally so maintained by those scientists. The metallurgists have not hesitated to protest that while this distinction of "Ages" may serve the archæologists, and no doubt represents the sequence in which the metal objects are found, yet it by no means follows that this was the order of their discovery or use, but that iron by its rapidity of oxidation has simply not been preserved. The arguments which may be advanced from our side are in the main these. Iron ore is of more frequent occurrence than copper ores, and the necessary reduction of copper oxides (as most surface ores must have been) to fluid metal requires a temperature very much higher than does the reduction of iron oxides to wrought-iron blooms, which do not necessitate fusion. The comparatively greater simplicity of iron metallurgy under primitive conditions is well exemplified by the hill tribes of Northern Nigeria, where in village forges the negroes reduce iron[Pg 421]sufficient for their needs, from hematite. Copper alone would not be a very serviceable metal to primitive man, and he early made the advance to bronze; this latter metal requires three metallurgical operations, and presents immeasurably greater difficulties than iron. It is, as Professor Gowland has demonstrated (Presidential Address, Inst. of Metals, London, 1912) quite possible to make bronze from melting stanniferous copper ores, yet such combined occurrence at the surface is rare, and, so far as known, the copper sources from which Asia Minor and Egypt obtained their supply do not contain tin. It seems to us, therefore, that in most cases the separate fusions of different ores and their subsequent re-melting were required to make bronze. The arguments advanced by the archæologists bear mostly upon the fact that, had iron been known, its superiority would have caused the primitive races to adopt it, and we should not find such an abundance of bronze tools. As to this, it may be said that bronze weapons and tools are plentiful enough in Egyptian, Mycenæan, and early Greek remains, long after iron was demonstrably well known. There has been a good deal pronounced by etymologists on the history of iron and copper, for instance, by Max Müller, (Lectures on the Science of Language, Vol.II, p. 255, London, 1864), and many others, but the amazing lack of metallurgical knowledge nullifies practically all their conclusions. The oldest Egyptian texts extant, dating 3500B.C., refer to iron, and there is in the British Museum a piece of iron found in the Pyramid of Kephron (3700B.C.) under conditions indicating its co-incident origin. There is exhibited also a fragment of oxidized iron lately found by Professor Petrie and placed as of the VI Dynasty (B.C.3200). Despite this evidence of an early knowledge of iron, there is almost a total absence of Egyptian iron objects for a long period subsequent to that time, which in a measure confirms the view of its disappearance rather than that of ignorance of it. Many writers have assumed that the Ancients must have had some superior art of hardening copper or bronze, because the cutting of the gigantic stonework of the time could not have been done with that alloy as we know it; no such hardening appears among the bronze tools found, and it seems to us that the argument is stronger that the oldest Egyptian stoneworkers employed mostly iron tools, and that these have oxidized out of existence. The reasons for preferring copper alloys to iron for decorative objects were equally strong in ancient times as in the present day, and accounts sufficiently for these articles, and, therefore, iron would be devoted to more humble objects less likely to be preserved. Further, the Egyptians at a later date had some prejudices against iron for sacred purposes, and the media of preservation of most metal objects were not open to iron. We know practically nothing of very early Egyptian metallurgy, but in the time of Thotmes III. (1500B.C.) bellows were used upon the forge.Of literary evidences the earliest is in the Shoo King among the Tribute of Yü (2500B.C.?). Iron is frequently mentioned in the Bible, but it is doubtful if any of the early references apply to steel. There is scarcely a Greek or Latin author who does not mention iron in some connection, and of the earliest, none are so suggestive from a metallurgical point of view as Homer, by whom "laboured" mass (wrought-iron?) is often referred to. As, for instance, in the Odyssey (I., 234) Pallas in the guise of Mentes, says according to Pope:"Freighted with iron from my native landI steer my voyage to the Brutian strand,To gain by commerce for the laboured massA just proportion of refulgent brass."[Pg 423](Brass is modern poetic licence for copper or bronze). Also, in the Odyssey (IX, 465) when Homer describes how Ulysses plunged the stake into Cyclop's eye, we have the first positive evidence of steel, although hard iron mentioned in the Tribute of Yü, above referred to, is sometimes given as steel:"And as when armourers temper in the fordThe keen-edg'd pole-axe, or the shining sword,The red-hot metal hisses in the lake."No doubt early wrought-iron was made in the same manner as Agricola describes. We are, however, not so clear as to the methods of making steel. Under primitive methods of making wrought-iron it is quite possible to carburize the iron sufficiently to make steel direct from ore. The primitive method of India and Japan was to enclose lumps of wrought-iron in sealed crucibles with charcoal and sawdust, and heat them over a long period. Neither Pliny nor any of the other authors of the period previous to the Christian Era give us much help on steel metallurgy, although certain obscure expressions of Aristotle have been called upon (for instance, St. John V. Day, Prehistoric Use of Iron and Steel, London, 1877, p. 134) to prove its manufacture by immersing wrought-iron in molten cast-iron.[56]Quae vel aerosa est, vel cocta. It is by no means certain thatcocta, "cooked" is rightly translated, for the author has not hitherto used this expression for heated. This may be residues from roasting and leaching pyrites for vitriol, etc.[Pg 428][57]Agricola draws no sharp line of distinction between antimony the metal, and its sulphide. He uses the Roman termstibiorstibium(Interpretatio,—Spiesglas) throughout this book, and evidently in most cases means the sulphide, but in others, particularly in parting gold and silver, metallic antimony would be reduced out. We have been in much doubt as to the term to introduce into the text, as the English "stibnite" carries too much precision of meaning. Originally the "antimony" of trade was the sulphide. Later, with the application of that term to the metal, the sulphide was termed "grey antimony," and we have either usedstibiumfor lack of better alternative, or adopted "grey antimony." The method described by Agricola for treating antimony sulphide is still used in the Harz, in Bohemia, and elsewhere. The stibnite is liquated out at a low heat and drips from the upper to the lower pot. The resulting purified antimony sulphide is the modern commercial "crude antimony" or "grey antimony."Historical Note on the Metallurgy of Antimony.The Egyptologists have adopted the term "antimony" for certain cosmetics found in Egyptian tombs from a very early period. We have, however, failed to find any reliable analyses which warrant this assumption, and we believe that it is based on the knowledge that antimony was used as a base for eye ointments in Greek and Roman times, and not upon proper chemical investigation. It may be that the ideograph which is interpreted as antimony may really mean that substance, but we only protest that the chemist should have been called in long since. In St. Jerome's translation of the Bible, the cosmetic used by Jezebel (II.KingsIX, 30) and by the lady mentioned by Ezekiel (XXIII, 40), "who didst wash thyself and paintedst thine eyes" is specifically given asstibio. Our modern translation carries no hint of the composition of the cosmetic, and whether some of the Greek or Hebrew MSS. do furnish a basis for such translation we cannot say. The Hebrew term for this mineral waskohl, which subsequently passed into "alcool" and "alkohol" in other languages, and appears in the Spanish Bible in the above passage in Ezekiel asalcoholaste. The termantimoniumseems to have been first used in Latin editions of Geber published in the latter part of the 15th Century. In any event, the metal is clearly mentioned by Dioscorides (1st Century), who calls itstimmi, and Pliny, who termed itstibium, and they leave no doubt that it was used as a cosmetic for painting the eyebrows and dilating the eyes. Dioscorides (V, 59) says: "The beststimmiis very brilliant and radiant. When broken it divides into layers with no part earthy or dirty; it is brittle. Some call itstimmi, othersplatyophthalmon(wide eyed); otherslarbason, othersgynaekeion(feminine).... It is roasted in a ball of dough with charcoal until it becomes a cinder.... It is also roasted by putting it on live charcoal and blowing it. If it is roasted too much it becomes lead." Pliny states (XXXIII, 33 and 34): "In the same mines in which silver is found, properly speaking there is a stone froth. It is white and shining, not transparent; is calledstimmi, orstibi, oralabastrum, andlarbasis. There are two kinds of it, the male and the female. The most approved is the female, the male being more uneven, rougher, less heavy, not so radiant, and more gritty. The female kind is bright and friable, laminar and not globular. It is astringent and refrigerative, and its principal use is for the eyes.... It is burned in manure in a furnace, is quenched with milk, ground with rain water in a mortar, and while thus turbid it is poured into a copper vessel and purified with nitrum ... above all in roasting it care[Pg 429]should be taken that it does not turn to lead." There can be little doubt from Dioscorides' statement of its turning to lead that he had seen the metal antimony, although he thought it a species of lead. Of further interest in connection with the ancient knowledge of the metal is the Chaldean vase made of antimony described by Berthelot (Comptes Rendus, 1887,CIV, 265). It is possible that Agricola knew the metal, although he gives no details as to de-sulphurizing it or for recovering the metal itself. InDe Natura Fossilium(p. 181) he makes a statement which would indicate the metal, "Stibiumwhen melted in the crucible and refined has as much right to be regarded as a metal as is accorded to lead by most writers. If when smelted a certain portion be added to tin, a printer's alloy is made from which type is cast that is used by those who print books." Basil Valentine, in his "Triumphal Chariot of Antimony," gives a great deal that is new with regard to this metal, even if we can accredit the work with no earlier origin than its publication—about 1600; it seems[Pg 430]possible however, that it was written late in the 15th Century (seeAppendix B). He describes the preparation of the metal from the crude ore, both by roasting and reduction from the oxide with argol and saltpetre, and also by fusing with metallic iron. While the first description of these methods is usually attributed to Valentine, it may be pointed out that in theProbierbüchlein(1500) as well as in Agricola the separation of silver from iron by antimony sulphide implies the same reaction, and the separation of silver and gold with antimony sulphide, often attributed to Valentine, is repeatedly set out in theProbierbüchleinand inDe Re Metallica. Biringuccio (1540) has nothing of importance to say as to the treatment of antimonial ores, but mentions it as an alloy for bell-metal, which would imply the metal.[Pg 432][58]Historical Note on the Metallurgy of Quicksilver.The earliest mention of quicksilver appears to have been by Aristotle (MeteorologicaIV, 8, 11), who speaks of it as fluid silver (argyros chytos). Theophrastus (105) states: "Such is the production of quicksilver, which has its uses. This is obtained from cinnabar rubbed with vinegar in a brass mortar with a brass pestle." (Hill's Trans., p. 139). Theophrastus also (103) mentions cinnabar from Spain and elsewhere. Dioscorides (V, 70) appears to be the first to describe the recovery of quicksilver by distillation: "Quicksilver (hydrargyros,i.e., liquid silver) is made fromammion, which is calledcinnabari. An iron bowl containingcinnabariis put into an earthen vessel and covered over with a cup-shaped lid smeared with clay. Then it is set on a fire of coals and the soot which sticks to the cover when wiped off and cooled is quicksilver. Quicksilver is also found in drops falling from the walls of the silver mines. Some say there are quicksilver mines. It can be kept only in vessels of glass, lead, tin (?), or silver, for if put in vessels of any other substances it consumes them and flows[Pg 433]through." Pliny (XXXIII, 41): "There has been discovered a way of extractinghydrargyrosfrom the inferiorminiumas a substitute for quicksilver, as mentioned. There are two methods: either by poundingminiumand vinegar in a brass mortar with a brass pestle, or else by puttingminiuminto a flat earthen dish covered with a lid, well luted with potter's clay. This is set in an iron pan and a fire is then lighted under the pan, and continually blown by a bellows. The perspiration collects on the lid and is wiped off and is like silver in colour and as liquid as water." Pliny is somewhat confused over theminium—or the text is corrupt, for this should be the genuineminiumof Roman times. The methods of condensation on the leaves of branches placed in a chamber, of condensing in ashes placed over the mouth of the lower pot, and of distilling in a retort, are referred to by Biringuccio (A.D.1540), but with no detail.[59]Most of these methods depend upon simple liquation of native bismuth. The sulphides, oxides, etc., could not be obtained without fusing in a furnace with appropriate de-sulphurizing or reducing agents, to which Agricola dimly refers. InBermannus(p. 439), he says: "Bermannus.—I will show you another kind of mineral which is numbered amongst metals, but appears to me to have been unknown to the Ancients; we call itbisemutum.Naevius.—Then in your opinion there are more kinds of metals than the seven commonly believed?Bermannus.—More, I consider; for this which just now I said we calledbisemutum, cannot correctly be calledplumbum candidum(tin) nornigrum(lead), but is different from both, and is a third one.Plumbum candidumis whiter andplumbum nigrumis darker, as you see.Naevius.—We see that this is of the colour ofgalena.Ancon.—How then canbisemutum, as you call it, be distinguished fromgalena?Bermannus.—Easily; when you take it in your hands it stains them with black unless it is quite hard. The hard kind is not friable likegalena, but can be cut. It is blacker than the kind of crude silver which we say is almost the colour of lead, and thus is different from both. Indeed, it not rarely contains some silver. It generally shows that there is silver beneath the place where it is found, and because of this our miners are accustomed to call it the 'roof of silver.' They are wont to roast this mineral, and from the better part they make metal; from the poorer part they make a pigment of a kind not to be despised." This pigment was cobalt blue (see note on p.112), indicating a considerable confusion of these minerals. This quotation is the first description of bismuth, and the above text the first description of bismuth treatment. There is, however, bare mention of the mineral earlier, in the following single line from theProbierbüchlein(p. 1): "Jupiter (controls) the ores of tin andwismundt." And it is noted in theNützliche Bergbüchleinin association with silver (seeAppendix B).[Pg 435][60]Thiscadmiais given in the German translation askobelt. It is probably the cobalt-arsenic-bismuth minerals common in Saxony. A large portion of the world's supply of bismuth to-day comes from the cobalt treatment works near Schneeberg. For further discussion ofcadmiasee note on p.112.

[49]"... non raro, ut nonnulli pyritae sunt, candida...." This is apparently the unknown substance mentioned above.

[Pg 411][50]Onedrachmais about 3 ounces Troy per short ton. Threeunciaeare about 72 ounces 6 dwts. Troy per short ton.

[51]In this section, which treats of the metallurgy ofplumbum candidum, "tin," the wordcandidumis very often omitted in the Latin, leaving onlyplumbum, which is confusing at times with lead. The black tin-stone,lapilli nigrihas been treated in a similar manner,lapilli(small stones) constantly occurring alone in the Latin. This has been rendered as "tin-stone" throughout, and the material prior to extraction of thelapilli nigrihas been rendered "tin-stuff," after the Cornish.

[52]"... ex saxis vilibus, quae natura de diversa materia composuit." The Glossary givesgrindstein. Granite (?).

[53]Historical Notes on Tin Metallurgy.The first appearance of tin lies in the ancient bronzes. And while much is written upon the "Bronze Age" by archæologists, we seriously doubt whether or not a large part of so-called bronze is not copper. In any event, this period varied with each race, and for instance, in Britain may have been much later than Egyptian historic times. The bronze articles of the IV Dynasty (from 3800 to 4700B.C.depending on the authority) place us on certain ground of antiquity. Professor Gowland (Presidential Address, Inst. of Metals, London, 1912) maintains that the early bronzes were the result of direct smelting of stanniferous copper ores, and while this may be partially true for Western Europe, the distribution and nature of the copper deposits do not warrant this assumption for the earlier scenes of human activity—Asia Minor, Egypt, and India. Further, the lumps of rough tin and also of copper found by Borlase (Tin Mining in Spain, Past and Present, London, 1897, p. 25) in Cornwall, mixed with bronze celts under conditions certainly indicating the Bronze Age, is in itself of considerable evidence of independent melting. To our mind the vast majority of ancient bronzes must have been made from copper and tin mined and smelted independently. As to the source of supply of ancient tin, we are on clear ground only with the advent of the Phœnicians, 1500-1000B.C., who, as is well known, distributed to the ancient world a supply from Spain and Britain. What the source may have been prior to this time has been subject to much discussion, and while some[Pg 412]slender threads indicate the East, we believe that a more local supply to Egypt, etc., is not impossible. The discovery of large tin fields in Central Africa and the native-made tin ornaments in circulation among the negroes, made possible the entrance of the metal into Egypt along the trade routes. Further, we see no reason why alluvial tin may not have existed within easy reach and have become exhausted. How quickly such a source of metal supply can be forgotten and no evidence remain, is indicated by the seldom remembered alluvial gold supply from Ireland. However, be these conjectures as they may, the East has long been the scene of tin production and of transportation activity. Among the slender evidences that point in this direction is that the Sanskrit term for tin iskastira, a term also employed by the Chaldeans, and represented in Arabic bykasdir, and it may have been the progenitor of the Greekcassiteros. There can be no doubt that the Phœnicians also traded with Malacca, etc., but beyond these threads there is little to prove the pre-western source. The strained argument of Beckmann (Hist. of Inventions, vol.II., p. 207) that thecassiterosof Homer and thebedilof the Hebrews was possibly not tin, and that tin was unknown at this time, falls to the ground in the face of the vast amount of tin which must have been in circulation to account for the bronze used over a period 2,000 years prior to those peoples. Tin is early mentioned in the Scriptures (NumbersXXXI, 22), being enumerated among the spoil of the Midianites (1200B.C.?), also Ezekiel (600B.C.,XXVII, 12) speaks of tin from Tarshish (the Phœnician settlement on the coast of Spain). According to Homer tin played considerable part in Vulcan's metallurgical stores. Even approximately at what period the Phœnicians began their distribution from Spain and Britain cannot be determined. They apparently established their settlements at Gades (Cadiz) in Tarshish, beyond Gibraltar, about 1100B.C.The remains of tin mining in the Spanish peninsula prior to the Christian Era indicate most extensive production by the Phœnicians, but there is little evidence as to either mining or smelting methods. Generally as to the technical methods of mining and smelting tin, we are practically without any satisfactory statement down to Agricola. However, such scraps of information as are available are those in Homer (see note on p.402), Diodorus, and Pliny.Diodorus says (V, 2) regarding tin in Spain: "They dig it up, and melt it down in the same way as they do gold and silver;" and again, speaking of the tin in Britain, he says: "These people make tin, which they dig up with a great deal of care and labour; being rocky, the metal is mixed with earth, out of which they melt the metal, and then refine it." Pliny (XXXIV, 47), in the well-known and much-disputed passage: "Next to be considered are the characteristics of lead, which is of two kinds, black and white. The most valuable is the white; the Greeks called itcassiteros, and there is a fabulous story of its being searched for and carried from the islands of Atlantis in barks covered with hides. Certainly it is obtained in Lusitania and Gallaecia on the surface of the earth from black-coloured sand. It is discovered by its great weight, and it is mixed with small pebbles in[Pg 413]the dried beds of torrents. The miners wash these sands, and that which settles they heat in the furnace. It is also found in gold mines, which are calledalutiae. A stream of water passing through detaches small black pebbles variegated with white spots, the weight of which is the same as gold. Hence it is that they remain in the baskets of the gold collectors with the gold; afterward, they are separated in acamillumand when melted become white lead."There is practically no reference to the methods of Cornish tin-working over the whole period of 2,000 years that mining operations were carried on there prior to the Norman occupation. From then until Agricola's time, a period of some four centuries, there are occasional references in Stannary Court proceedings, Charters, and such-like official documents which give little metallurgical insight. From a letter of William de Wrotham, Lord Warden of the Stannaries, in 1198, setting out the regulations for the impost on tin, it is evident that the black tin was smelted once at the mines and that a second smelting or refining was carried out in specified towns under the observation of the Crown Officials. In many other official documents there are repeated references to the right to dig turfs and cut wood for smelting the tin. Undernote 8, p. 282, we give some further information on tin concentration, and the relation of Cornish and German tin miners. Biringuccio (1540) gives very little information on tin metallurgy, and we are brought toDe Re Metallicafor the first clear exposition.As to the description on these pages it must be remembered that the tin-stone has been already roasted, thus removing some volatile impurities and oxidizing others, as described on page348. The furnaces and the methods of working the tin, here described, are almost identical with those in use in Saxony to-day. In general, since Agricola's time tin has not seen the mechanical and metallurgical development of the other metals. The comparatively small quantities to be dealt with; the necessity of maintaining a strong reducing atmosphere, and consequently a mild cold blast; and the comparatively low temperature demanded, gave little impetus to other than crude appliances until very modern times.

Diodorus says (V, 2) regarding tin in Spain: "They dig it up, and melt it down in the same way as they do gold and silver;" and again, speaking of the tin in Britain, he says: "These people make tin, which they dig up with a great deal of care and labour; being rocky, the metal is mixed with earth, out of which they melt the metal, and then refine it." Pliny (XXXIV, 47), in the well-known and much-disputed passage: "Next to be considered are the characteristics of lead, which is of two kinds, black and white. The most valuable is the white; the Greeks called itcassiteros, and there is a fabulous story of its being searched for and carried from the islands of Atlantis in barks covered with hides. Certainly it is obtained in Lusitania and Gallaecia on the surface of the earth from black-coloured sand. It is discovered by its great weight, and it is mixed with small pebbles in[Pg 413]the dried beds of torrents. The miners wash these sands, and that which settles they heat in the furnace. It is also found in gold mines, which are calledalutiae. A stream of water passing through detaches small black pebbles variegated with white spots, the weight of which is the same as gold. Hence it is that they remain in the baskets of the gold collectors with the gold; afterward, they are separated in acamillumand when melted become white lead."

There is practically no reference to the methods of Cornish tin-working over the whole period of 2,000 years that mining operations were carried on there prior to the Norman occupation. From then until Agricola's time, a period of some four centuries, there are occasional references in Stannary Court proceedings, Charters, and such-like official documents which give little metallurgical insight. From a letter of William de Wrotham, Lord Warden of the Stannaries, in 1198, setting out the regulations for the impost on tin, it is evident that the black tin was smelted once at the mines and that a second smelting or refining was carried out in specified towns under the observation of the Crown Officials. In many other official documents there are repeated references to the right to dig turfs and cut wood for smelting the tin. Undernote 8, p. 282, we give some further information on tin concentration, and the relation of Cornish and German tin miners. Biringuccio (1540) gives very little information on tin metallurgy, and we are brought toDe Re Metallicafor the first clear exposition.

As to the description on these pages it must be remembered that the tin-stone has been already roasted, thus removing some volatile impurities and oxidizing others, as described on page348. The furnaces and the methods of working the tin, here described, are almost identical with those in use in Saxony to-day. In general, since Agricola's time tin has not seen the mechanical and metallurgical development of the other metals. The comparatively small quantities to be dealt with; the necessity of maintaining a strong reducing atmosphere, and consequently a mild cold blast; and the comparatively low temperature demanded, gave little impetus to other than crude appliances until very modern times.

[Pg 419][54]Aureo nummo. German Translation givesreinschen gülden, which was the equivalent of about $1.66, or 6.9 shillings. The purchasing power of money was, however, several times as great as at present.

[Pg 420][55]In the following descriptions of iron-smelting, we have three processes described; the first being the direct reduction of malleable iron from ore, the second the transition stage then in progress from the direct to indirect method by way of cast-iron; and the third a method of making steel by cementation. The first method is that of primitive iron-workers of all times and all races, and requires little comment. A pasty mass was produced, which was subsequently hammered to make it exude the slag, the hammered mass being the ancient "bloom." The second process is of considerable interest, for it marks one of the earliest descriptions of working iron in "a furnace similar to a blast furnace, but much wider and higher." This original GermanStückofenor high bloomery furnace was used for making "masses" of wrought-iron under essentially the same conditions as its progenitor the forge—only upon a larger scale. With high temperatures, however, such a furnace would, if desired, yield molten metal, and thus the step to cast-iron as a preliminary to wrought-iron became very easy and natural, in fact Agricola mentions above that if the iron is left to settle in the furnace it becomes hard. The making of malleable iron by subsequent treatment of the cast-iron—the indirect method—originated in about Agricola's time, and marks the beginning of one of those subtle economic currents destined to have the widest bearing upon civilization. It is to us uncertain whether he really understood the double treatment or not. In the above paragraph he says from ore "once or twice smelted they make iron," etc., and inDe Natura Fossilium(p. 339) some reference is made to pouring melted iron, all of which would appear to be cast-iron. He does not, however, describe the 16th Century method of converting cast into wrought iron by way of in effect roasting the pig iron to eliminate carbon by oxidation, with subsequent melting into a "ball" or "mass." It must be borne in mind that puddling for this purpose did not come into use until the end of the 18th Century. A great deal of discussion has arisen as to where and at what time cast-iron was made systematically, but without satisfactory answer; in any event, it seems to have been in about the end of the 14th Century, as cast cannon began to appear about that time. It is our impression that the whole of this discussion on iron inDe Re Metallicais an abstract from Biringuccio, who wrote 15 years earlier, as it is in so nearly identical terms. Those interested will find a translation of Biringuccio's statement with regard to steel in Percy's Metallurgy of Iron and Steel, London, 1864, p. 807.Historical Note on Iron Smelting.The archæologists' division of the history of racial development into the Stone, Bronze, and Iron Ages, based upon objects found in tumuli, burial places, etc., would on the face of it indicate the prior discovery of copper metallurgy over iron, and it is generally so maintained by those scientists. The metallurgists have not hesitated to protest that while this distinction of "Ages" may serve the archæologists, and no doubt represents the sequence in which the metal objects are found, yet it by no means follows that this was the order of their discovery or use, but that iron by its rapidity of oxidation has simply not been preserved. The arguments which may be advanced from our side are in the main these. Iron ore is of more frequent occurrence than copper ores, and the necessary reduction of copper oxides (as most surface ores must have been) to fluid metal requires a temperature very much higher than does the reduction of iron oxides to wrought-iron blooms, which do not necessitate fusion. The comparatively greater simplicity of iron metallurgy under primitive conditions is well exemplified by the hill tribes of Northern Nigeria, where in village forges the negroes reduce iron[Pg 421]sufficient for their needs, from hematite. Copper alone would not be a very serviceable metal to primitive man, and he early made the advance to bronze; this latter metal requires three metallurgical operations, and presents immeasurably greater difficulties than iron. It is, as Professor Gowland has demonstrated (Presidential Address, Inst. of Metals, London, 1912) quite possible to make bronze from melting stanniferous copper ores, yet such combined occurrence at the surface is rare, and, so far as known, the copper sources from which Asia Minor and Egypt obtained their supply do not contain tin. It seems to us, therefore, that in most cases the separate fusions of different ores and their subsequent re-melting were required to make bronze. The arguments advanced by the archæologists bear mostly upon the fact that, had iron been known, its superiority would have caused the primitive races to adopt it, and we should not find such an abundance of bronze tools. As to this, it may be said that bronze weapons and tools are plentiful enough in Egyptian, Mycenæan, and early Greek remains, long after iron was demonstrably well known. There has been a good deal pronounced by etymologists on the history of iron and copper, for instance, by Max Müller, (Lectures on the Science of Language, Vol.II, p. 255, London, 1864), and many others, but the amazing lack of metallurgical knowledge nullifies practically all their conclusions. The oldest Egyptian texts extant, dating 3500B.C., refer to iron, and there is in the British Museum a piece of iron found in the Pyramid of Kephron (3700B.C.) under conditions indicating its co-incident origin. There is exhibited also a fragment of oxidized iron lately found by Professor Petrie and placed as of the VI Dynasty (B.C.3200). Despite this evidence of an early knowledge of iron, there is almost a total absence of Egyptian iron objects for a long period subsequent to that time, which in a measure confirms the view of its disappearance rather than that of ignorance of it. Many writers have assumed that the Ancients must have had some superior art of hardening copper or bronze, because the cutting of the gigantic stonework of the time could not have been done with that alloy as we know it; no such hardening appears among the bronze tools found, and it seems to us that the argument is stronger that the oldest Egyptian stoneworkers employed mostly iron tools, and that these have oxidized out of existence. The reasons for preferring copper alloys to iron for decorative objects were equally strong in ancient times as in the present day, and accounts sufficiently for these articles, and, therefore, iron would be devoted to more humble objects less likely to be preserved. Further, the Egyptians at a later date had some prejudices against iron for sacred purposes, and the media of preservation of most metal objects were not open to iron. We know practically nothing of very early Egyptian metallurgy, but in the time of Thotmes III. (1500B.C.) bellows were used upon the forge.Of literary evidences the earliest is in the Shoo King among the Tribute of Yü (2500B.C.?). Iron is frequently mentioned in the Bible, but it is doubtful if any of the early references apply to steel. There is scarcely a Greek or Latin author who does not mention iron in some connection, and of the earliest, none are so suggestive from a metallurgical point of view as Homer, by whom "laboured" mass (wrought-iron?) is often referred to. As, for instance, in the Odyssey (I., 234) Pallas in the guise of Mentes, says according to Pope:"Freighted with iron from my native landI steer my voyage to the Brutian strand,To gain by commerce for the laboured massA just proportion of refulgent brass."[Pg 423](Brass is modern poetic licence for copper or bronze). Also, in the Odyssey (IX, 465) when Homer describes how Ulysses plunged the stake into Cyclop's eye, we have the first positive evidence of steel, although hard iron mentioned in the Tribute of Yü, above referred to, is sometimes given as steel:"And as when armourers temper in the fordThe keen-edg'd pole-axe, or the shining sword,The red-hot metal hisses in the lake."No doubt early wrought-iron was made in the same manner as Agricola describes. We are, however, not so clear as to the methods of making steel. Under primitive methods of making wrought-iron it is quite possible to carburize the iron sufficiently to make steel direct from ore. The primitive method of India and Japan was to enclose lumps of wrought-iron in sealed crucibles with charcoal and sawdust, and heat them over a long period. Neither Pliny nor any of the other authors of the period previous to the Christian Era give us much help on steel metallurgy, although certain obscure expressions of Aristotle have been called upon (for instance, St. John V. Day, Prehistoric Use of Iron and Steel, London, 1877, p. 134) to prove its manufacture by immersing wrought-iron in molten cast-iron.

Historical Note on Iron Smelting.The archæologists' division of the history of racial development into the Stone, Bronze, and Iron Ages, based upon objects found in tumuli, burial places, etc., would on the face of it indicate the prior discovery of copper metallurgy over iron, and it is generally so maintained by those scientists. The metallurgists have not hesitated to protest that while this distinction of "Ages" may serve the archæologists, and no doubt represents the sequence in which the metal objects are found, yet it by no means follows that this was the order of their discovery or use, but that iron by its rapidity of oxidation has simply not been preserved. The arguments which may be advanced from our side are in the main these. Iron ore is of more frequent occurrence than copper ores, and the necessary reduction of copper oxides (as most surface ores must have been) to fluid metal requires a temperature very much higher than does the reduction of iron oxides to wrought-iron blooms, which do not necessitate fusion. The comparatively greater simplicity of iron metallurgy under primitive conditions is well exemplified by the hill tribes of Northern Nigeria, where in village forges the negroes reduce iron[Pg 421]sufficient for their needs, from hematite. Copper alone would not be a very serviceable metal to primitive man, and he early made the advance to bronze; this latter metal requires three metallurgical operations, and presents immeasurably greater difficulties than iron. It is, as Professor Gowland has demonstrated (Presidential Address, Inst. of Metals, London, 1912) quite possible to make bronze from melting stanniferous copper ores, yet such combined occurrence at the surface is rare, and, so far as known, the copper sources from which Asia Minor and Egypt obtained their supply do not contain tin. It seems to us, therefore, that in most cases the separate fusions of different ores and their subsequent re-melting were required to make bronze. The arguments advanced by the archæologists bear mostly upon the fact that, had iron been known, its superiority would have caused the primitive races to adopt it, and we should not find such an abundance of bronze tools. As to this, it may be said that bronze weapons and tools are plentiful enough in Egyptian, Mycenæan, and early Greek remains, long after iron was demonstrably well known. There has been a good deal pronounced by etymologists on the history of iron and copper, for instance, by Max Müller, (Lectures on the Science of Language, Vol.II, p. 255, London, 1864), and many others, but the amazing lack of metallurgical knowledge nullifies practically all their conclusions. The oldest Egyptian texts extant, dating 3500B.C., refer to iron, and there is in the British Museum a piece of iron found in the Pyramid of Kephron (3700B.C.) under conditions indicating its co-incident origin. There is exhibited also a fragment of oxidized iron lately found by Professor Petrie and placed as of the VI Dynasty (B.C.3200). Despite this evidence of an early knowledge of iron, there is almost a total absence of Egyptian iron objects for a long period subsequent to that time, which in a measure confirms the view of its disappearance rather than that of ignorance of it. Many writers have assumed that the Ancients must have had some superior art of hardening copper or bronze, because the cutting of the gigantic stonework of the time could not have been done with that alloy as we know it; no such hardening appears among the bronze tools found, and it seems to us that the argument is stronger that the oldest Egyptian stoneworkers employed mostly iron tools, and that these have oxidized out of existence. The reasons for preferring copper alloys to iron for decorative objects were equally strong in ancient times as in the present day, and accounts sufficiently for these articles, and, therefore, iron would be devoted to more humble objects less likely to be preserved. Further, the Egyptians at a later date had some prejudices against iron for sacred purposes, and the media of preservation of most metal objects were not open to iron. We know practically nothing of very early Egyptian metallurgy, but in the time of Thotmes III. (1500B.C.) bellows were used upon the forge.

Of literary evidences the earliest is in the Shoo King among the Tribute of Yü (2500B.C.?). Iron is frequently mentioned in the Bible, but it is doubtful if any of the early references apply to steel. There is scarcely a Greek or Latin author who does not mention iron in some connection, and of the earliest, none are so suggestive from a metallurgical point of view as Homer, by whom "laboured" mass (wrought-iron?) is often referred to. As, for instance, in the Odyssey (I., 234) Pallas in the guise of Mentes, says according to Pope:

"Freighted with iron from my native landI steer my voyage to the Brutian strand,To gain by commerce for the laboured massA just proportion of refulgent brass."

[Pg 423](Brass is modern poetic licence for copper or bronze). Also, in the Odyssey (IX, 465) when Homer describes how Ulysses plunged the stake into Cyclop's eye, we have the first positive evidence of steel, although hard iron mentioned in the Tribute of Yü, above referred to, is sometimes given as steel:

"And as when armourers temper in the fordThe keen-edg'd pole-axe, or the shining sword,The red-hot metal hisses in the lake."

No doubt early wrought-iron was made in the same manner as Agricola describes. We are, however, not so clear as to the methods of making steel. Under primitive methods of making wrought-iron it is quite possible to carburize the iron sufficiently to make steel direct from ore. The primitive method of India and Japan was to enclose lumps of wrought-iron in sealed crucibles with charcoal and sawdust, and heat them over a long period. Neither Pliny nor any of the other authors of the period previous to the Christian Era give us much help on steel metallurgy, although certain obscure expressions of Aristotle have been called upon (for instance, St. John V. Day, Prehistoric Use of Iron and Steel, London, 1877, p. 134) to prove its manufacture by immersing wrought-iron in molten cast-iron.

[56]Quae vel aerosa est, vel cocta. It is by no means certain thatcocta, "cooked" is rightly translated, for the author has not hitherto used this expression for heated. This may be residues from roasting and leaching pyrites for vitriol, etc.

[Pg 428][57]Agricola draws no sharp line of distinction between antimony the metal, and its sulphide. He uses the Roman termstibiorstibium(Interpretatio,—Spiesglas) throughout this book, and evidently in most cases means the sulphide, but in others, particularly in parting gold and silver, metallic antimony would be reduced out. We have been in much doubt as to the term to introduce into the text, as the English "stibnite" carries too much precision of meaning. Originally the "antimony" of trade was the sulphide. Later, with the application of that term to the metal, the sulphide was termed "grey antimony," and we have either usedstibiumfor lack of better alternative, or adopted "grey antimony." The method described by Agricola for treating antimony sulphide is still used in the Harz, in Bohemia, and elsewhere. The stibnite is liquated out at a low heat and drips from the upper to the lower pot. The resulting purified antimony sulphide is the modern commercial "crude antimony" or "grey antimony."Historical Note on the Metallurgy of Antimony.The Egyptologists have adopted the term "antimony" for certain cosmetics found in Egyptian tombs from a very early period. We have, however, failed to find any reliable analyses which warrant this assumption, and we believe that it is based on the knowledge that antimony was used as a base for eye ointments in Greek and Roman times, and not upon proper chemical investigation. It may be that the ideograph which is interpreted as antimony may really mean that substance, but we only protest that the chemist should have been called in long since. In St. Jerome's translation of the Bible, the cosmetic used by Jezebel (II.KingsIX, 30) and by the lady mentioned by Ezekiel (XXIII, 40), "who didst wash thyself and paintedst thine eyes" is specifically given asstibio. Our modern translation carries no hint of the composition of the cosmetic, and whether some of the Greek or Hebrew MSS. do furnish a basis for such translation we cannot say. The Hebrew term for this mineral waskohl, which subsequently passed into "alcool" and "alkohol" in other languages, and appears in the Spanish Bible in the above passage in Ezekiel asalcoholaste. The termantimoniumseems to have been first used in Latin editions of Geber published in the latter part of the 15th Century. In any event, the metal is clearly mentioned by Dioscorides (1st Century), who calls itstimmi, and Pliny, who termed itstibium, and they leave no doubt that it was used as a cosmetic for painting the eyebrows and dilating the eyes. Dioscorides (V, 59) says: "The beststimmiis very brilliant and radiant. When broken it divides into layers with no part earthy or dirty; it is brittle. Some call itstimmi, othersplatyophthalmon(wide eyed); otherslarbason, othersgynaekeion(feminine).... It is roasted in a ball of dough with charcoal until it becomes a cinder.... It is also roasted by putting it on live charcoal and blowing it. If it is roasted too much it becomes lead." Pliny states (XXXIII, 33 and 34): "In the same mines in which silver is found, properly speaking there is a stone froth. It is white and shining, not transparent; is calledstimmi, orstibi, oralabastrum, andlarbasis. There are two kinds of it, the male and the female. The most approved is the female, the male being more uneven, rougher, less heavy, not so radiant, and more gritty. The female kind is bright and friable, laminar and not globular. It is astringent and refrigerative, and its principal use is for the eyes.... It is burned in manure in a furnace, is quenched with milk, ground with rain water in a mortar, and while thus turbid it is poured into a copper vessel and purified with nitrum ... above all in roasting it care[Pg 429]should be taken that it does not turn to lead." There can be little doubt from Dioscorides' statement of its turning to lead that he had seen the metal antimony, although he thought it a species of lead. Of further interest in connection with the ancient knowledge of the metal is the Chaldean vase made of antimony described by Berthelot (Comptes Rendus, 1887,CIV, 265). It is possible that Agricola knew the metal, although he gives no details as to de-sulphurizing it or for recovering the metal itself. InDe Natura Fossilium(p. 181) he makes a statement which would indicate the metal, "Stibiumwhen melted in the crucible and refined has as much right to be regarded as a metal as is accorded to lead by most writers. If when smelted a certain portion be added to tin, a printer's alloy is made from which type is cast that is used by those who print books." Basil Valentine, in his "Triumphal Chariot of Antimony," gives a great deal that is new with regard to this metal, even if we can accredit the work with no earlier origin than its publication—about 1600; it seems[Pg 430]possible however, that it was written late in the 15th Century (seeAppendix B). He describes the preparation of the metal from the crude ore, both by roasting and reduction from the oxide with argol and saltpetre, and also by fusing with metallic iron. While the first description of these methods is usually attributed to Valentine, it may be pointed out that in theProbierbüchlein(1500) as well as in Agricola the separation of silver from iron by antimony sulphide implies the same reaction, and the separation of silver and gold with antimony sulphide, often attributed to Valentine, is repeatedly set out in theProbierbüchleinand inDe Re Metallica. Biringuccio (1540) has nothing of importance to say as to the treatment of antimonial ores, but mentions it as an alloy for bell-metal, which would imply the metal.

Historical Note on the Metallurgy of Antimony.The Egyptologists have adopted the term "antimony" for certain cosmetics found in Egyptian tombs from a very early period. We have, however, failed to find any reliable analyses which warrant this assumption, and we believe that it is based on the knowledge that antimony was used as a base for eye ointments in Greek and Roman times, and not upon proper chemical investigation. It may be that the ideograph which is interpreted as antimony may really mean that substance, but we only protest that the chemist should have been called in long since. In St. Jerome's translation of the Bible, the cosmetic used by Jezebel (II.KingsIX, 30) and by the lady mentioned by Ezekiel (XXIII, 40), "who didst wash thyself and paintedst thine eyes" is specifically given asstibio. Our modern translation carries no hint of the composition of the cosmetic, and whether some of the Greek or Hebrew MSS. do furnish a basis for such translation we cannot say. The Hebrew term for this mineral waskohl, which subsequently passed into "alcool" and "alkohol" in other languages, and appears in the Spanish Bible in the above passage in Ezekiel asalcoholaste. The termantimoniumseems to have been first used in Latin editions of Geber published in the latter part of the 15th Century. In any event, the metal is clearly mentioned by Dioscorides (1st Century), who calls itstimmi, and Pliny, who termed itstibium, and they leave no doubt that it was used as a cosmetic for painting the eyebrows and dilating the eyes. Dioscorides (V, 59) says: "The beststimmiis very brilliant and radiant. When broken it divides into layers with no part earthy or dirty; it is brittle. Some call itstimmi, othersplatyophthalmon(wide eyed); otherslarbason, othersgynaekeion(feminine).... It is roasted in a ball of dough with charcoal until it becomes a cinder.... It is also roasted by putting it on live charcoal and blowing it. If it is roasted too much it becomes lead." Pliny states (XXXIII, 33 and 34): "In the same mines in which silver is found, properly speaking there is a stone froth. It is white and shining, not transparent; is calledstimmi, orstibi, oralabastrum, andlarbasis. There are two kinds of it, the male and the female. The most approved is the female, the male being more uneven, rougher, less heavy, not so radiant, and more gritty. The female kind is bright and friable, laminar and not globular. It is astringent and refrigerative, and its principal use is for the eyes.... It is burned in manure in a furnace, is quenched with milk, ground with rain water in a mortar, and while thus turbid it is poured into a copper vessel and purified with nitrum ... above all in roasting it care[Pg 429]should be taken that it does not turn to lead." There can be little doubt from Dioscorides' statement of its turning to lead that he had seen the metal antimony, although he thought it a species of lead. Of further interest in connection with the ancient knowledge of the metal is the Chaldean vase made of antimony described by Berthelot (Comptes Rendus, 1887,CIV, 265). It is possible that Agricola knew the metal, although he gives no details as to de-sulphurizing it or for recovering the metal itself. InDe Natura Fossilium(p. 181) he makes a statement which would indicate the metal, "Stibiumwhen melted in the crucible and refined has as much right to be regarded as a metal as is accorded to lead by most writers. If when smelted a certain portion be added to tin, a printer's alloy is made from which type is cast that is used by those who print books." Basil Valentine, in his "Triumphal Chariot of Antimony," gives a great deal that is new with regard to this metal, even if we can accredit the work with no earlier origin than its publication—about 1600; it seems[Pg 430]possible however, that it was written late in the 15th Century (seeAppendix B). He describes the preparation of the metal from the crude ore, both by roasting and reduction from the oxide with argol and saltpetre, and also by fusing with metallic iron. While the first description of these methods is usually attributed to Valentine, it may be pointed out that in theProbierbüchlein(1500) as well as in Agricola the separation of silver from iron by antimony sulphide implies the same reaction, and the separation of silver and gold with antimony sulphide, often attributed to Valentine, is repeatedly set out in theProbierbüchleinand inDe Re Metallica. Biringuccio (1540) has nothing of importance to say as to the treatment of antimonial ores, but mentions it as an alloy for bell-metal, which would imply the metal.

[Pg 432][58]Historical Note on the Metallurgy of Quicksilver.The earliest mention of quicksilver appears to have been by Aristotle (MeteorologicaIV, 8, 11), who speaks of it as fluid silver (argyros chytos). Theophrastus (105) states: "Such is the production of quicksilver, which has its uses. This is obtained from cinnabar rubbed with vinegar in a brass mortar with a brass pestle." (Hill's Trans., p. 139). Theophrastus also (103) mentions cinnabar from Spain and elsewhere. Dioscorides (V, 70) appears to be the first to describe the recovery of quicksilver by distillation: "Quicksilver (hydrargyros,i.e., liquid silver) is made fromammion, which is calledcinnabari. An iron bowl containingcinnabariis put into an earthen vessel and covered over with a cup-shaped lid smeared with clay. Then it is set on a fire of coals and the soot which sticks to the cover when wiped off and cooled is quicksilver. Quicksilver is also found in drops falling from the walls of the silver mines. Some say there are quicksilver mines. It can be kept only in vessels of glass, lead, tin (?), or silver, for if put in vessels of any other substances it consumes them and flows[Pg 433]through." Pliny (XXXIII, 41): "There has been discovered a way of extractinghydrargyrosfrom the inferiorminiumas a substitute for quicksilver, as mentioned. There are two methods: either by poundingminiumand vinegar in a brass mortar with a brass pestle, or else by puttingminiuminto a flat earthen dish covered with a lid, well luted with potter's clay. This is set in an iron pan and a fire is then lighted under the pan, and continually blown by a bellows. The perspiration collects on the lid and is wiped off and is like silver in colour and as liquid as water." Pliny is somewhat confused over theminium—or the text is corrupt, for this should be the genuineminiumof Roman times. The methods of condensation on the leaves of branches placed in a chamber, of condensing in ashes placed over the mouth of the lower pot, and of distilling in a retort, are referred to by Biringuccio (A.D.1540), but with no detail.

[59]Most of these methods depend upon simple liquation of native bismuth. The sulphides, oxides, etc., could not be obtained without fusing in a furnace with appropriate de-sulphurizing or reducing agents, to which Agricola dimly refers. InBermannus(p. 439), he says: "Bermannus.—I will show you another kind of mineral which is numbered amongst metals, but appears to me to have been unknown to the Ancients; we call itbisemutum.Naevius.—Then in your opinion there are more kinds of metals than the seven commonly believed?Bermannus.—More, I consider; for this which just now I said we calledbisemutum, cannot correctly be calledplumbum candidum(tin) nornigrum(lead), but is different from both, and is a third one.Plumbum candidumis whiter andplumbum nigrumis darker, as you see.Naevius.—We see that this is of the colour ofgalena.Ancon.—How then canbisemutum, as you call it, be distinguished fromgalena?Bermannus.—Easily; when you take it in your hands it stains them with black unless it is quite hard. The hard kind is not friable likegalena, but can be cut. It is blacker than the kind of crude silver which we say is almost the colour of lead, and thus is different from both. Indeed, it not rarely contains some silver. It generally shows that there is silver beneath the place where it is found, and because of this our miners are accustomed to call it the 'roof of silver.' They are wont to roast this mineral, and from the better part they make metal; from the poorer part they make a pigment of a kind not to be despised." This pigment was cobalt blue (see note on p.112), indicating a considerable confusion of these minerals. This quotation is the first description of bismuth, and the above text the first description of bismuth treatment. There is, however, bare mention of the mineral earlier, in the following single line from theProbierbüchlein(p. 1): "Jupiter (controls) the ores of tin andwismundt." And it is noted in theNützliche Bergbüchleinin association with silver (seeAppendix B).

[Pg 435][60]Thiscadmiais given in the German translation askobelt. It is probably the cobalt-arsenic-bismuth minerals common in Saxony. A large portion of the world's supply of bismuth to-day comes from the cobalt treatment works near Schneeberg. For further discussion ofcadmiasee note on p.112.

Back to Index Next