A History of Inventions, Discoveries, and Origins, Volume I (of 2)
The Scolymus is by Pliny and Theophrastus reckoned to belong to the genus of the thistles. The former says, that, like most others of the same kind, the seeds were covered by a sort of wool (pappus). It had a high stem, surrounded with leaves, which were prickly, but which ceased to sting when the plant withered610. It flowered the whole summer through, and had often flowers and ripe seed at the same time; which is the case also with our artichoke plants. The calyx of the scolymus was not prickly611; the root was thick, black and sweet, and contained a milky juice. It was eaten both raw and cooked; and Theophrastus observes, as something very remarkable, that when the plant was in flower, or, as others explain the words, when it had finished blowing, it was most palatable. What renders this circumstance singular is, that most milky roots used for food lose their milk and become unfit to be eaten as soon as they have blown. This is the case with the goat’s beard, which is eatable only the first year.
The scolymus however is not the only plant which forms an exception; for the garden Scorzonera retains its milk, and continues eatable after it has bloomed, and as long as it has milk it may be used. According to Theophrastus and Pliny, the roots of the scolymus are eatable. On the other hand, Dioscorides says that the roots were not eaten, but the young leaves only: as he informs us, however, that they were dressed like asparagus, it would appear that he meant the young shoots612. Theophrastus expressly tells us, that, besides the roots, the flowers also were used as food; and he calls that which was eatable the pulpy part. We have, therefore, full proof that the ancients ate the tops of some plants in the same manner as we eat our artichokes.
It may however be asked, what kind of a plant was the scolymus? That it was different from the cinara is undoubtedly certain; for Dioscorides613 expressly distinguishes them; nor was it the eatable carduus, for Pliny compares it with the carduus, and says that it was characterized from the latter by having roots fit to be eaten. Stapel is of opinion that the scolymus is our artichoke; but this seems to me improbable, for the leaves and roots of the latter are not sweet, but harsh and bitter, and the calyx is prickly, which was not the case in the scolymus of Theophrastus. Besides, I find nothing in the whole description of the scolymus or in the accounts given us by the ancients of the cinara and carduus, that can be applied to our artichoke alone, and not to any other plant. It may be here replied, that it would be very difficult to ascertain plants from the names of the ancients, were such strong proofs required, because they had not the art of separating the different genera correctly, and of assigning to each certain characterizing marks. This I allow; and for that reason it is impossible to elucidate properly the Greek and Latin names of plants; but, in my opinion, it is better to confess this impossibility, than to deceive oneself with distant probabilities. Let the genus be ascertained when one cannot ascertain the species; let the order to which the plant belongs be determined when one cannot determine the genus; or, at least, let the class be assigned when there is sufficient authority to do so. The cinara, carduus and scolymus were therefore species of the thistle, of which the roots and young shoots, and also the bottom of the calyx of the last, were eaten. Were I appointed or condemned to form a new Latin dictionary, I should explain the article Scolymus in the following manner: – Planta composita, capitata. Caulis longus, obsitus foliis spinosis. Radix carnosa, lactescens, nigra, dulcis, edulis. Calyx squamis inermibus, disco carnoso, ante efflorescentiam eduli. Semina papposa. Turiones edules. This description, short as it is, contains every thing that the ancients have said in order to characterize that plant. It can, indeed, be understood only by those who are acquainted with the terms of botany; but what follows will require no explanation or defining of botanical names.
Should it be said that the scolymus must be our artichoke because no other plant of the thistle kind is known the bottom of the calyx of which is eatable, I would in answer observe: – First, other species may have been known in ancient times, which perhaps have been disused and forgotten since the more pleasant and delicious artichoke became known. It is certain that many old plants have in this manner been banished from our gardens by the introduction of new ones. Thus have common alexanders (Smyrnium olusatrum) fallen into neglect since celery was made known by the Italians, about the end of the seventeenth century; and so at present has the cultivation of winter-cresses (Erysimum barbarea), bulbous-rooted chærophyllum (Chærophyllum bulbosum), rocket (Brassica eruca), and others, been abandoned since better vegetables have been obtained to supply their place. Secondly, it is certain that, even at present, the bottom of the calyx of some others of the thistle-kind, besides the genus of the artichoke, is eaten; such as the cotton-thistle (Onopordum acanthium), and the carline thistle (Carlina acaulis), without mentioning the sun-flowers which has been brought to us in modern times from South America.
Without engaging to examine all the hypotheses of commentators and ancient botanists on this subject, I shall take notice of one conjecture, which, upon mature consideration, appears to have some probability. Clusius614 is of opinion that the plant called by the botanists of the seventeenth century Carduus chrysanthemus, and by those of the present age Scolymus hispanicus, the golden thistle, is the scolymus of Theophrastus; because its leaves, beset with white prickles, and its pulpy, sweet, milky roots are eaten, and excel in taste all roots whatever, even those of skirret; and because it was collected and sold in Spain, Italy, and Greece. But what has principally attracted my attention to this conjecture, is the account of Bellon615, that this plant in Crete or Candia is called still by the Greeks there ascolymbros. This name seems to have arisen from scolymos; and besides Stapel616 found in an old glossary the word ascolymbros. I am likewise convinced that, as Tournefort617 has said, the botany of the ancients would be much illustrated and rendered more certain, were the names used by the modern Greeks known. It is certain that many old names have been preserved till the present time with little variation; but nevertheless I can as little admit the assertion of Clusius as that of Stapel; for Scolymus hispanicus has neither the bottom of the calyx pulpy, nor wool adhering to the seeds, like the scolymus of Theophrastus; and the young roots only can be eaten, because, like those of most plants of the genus of the thistle, they lose their milk when the flower is in bloom; lastly, the leaves retain their power of pricking, even after they have become withered.
The fourth name which, with any kind of probability, has been translated by the word artichoke is cactus. This plant, which, in the time of Theophrastus and Pliny, grew only in Sicily and not in Greece, had broad prickly leaves618; the flower was filled with a kind of wool, which, when eaten inadvertently, was pernicious619; the calyx was prickly: and, besides a long stem, it shot forth branches which crept along the ground620, and which, when the outer rind had been peeled off, were eaten either fresh, or pickled in salt water621. The bottom of the calyx of this plant was likewise used, after it had been freed from its seeds and woolly substance622. It had a great resemblance to the pith of the palm-tree623.
That the cactus was different from the scolymus we are expressly told by Theophrastus; and Pliny also distinguishes them both from each other and from the carduus. Athenæus624 is the only author who says that the cactus and the cinara were the same; but he gives no other proof than a very simple etymology. It must therefore be admitted that the cactus was a species of the thistle kind entirely different from any of the former.
I think I have proved, therefore, that the Greeks and the Romans used the pulpy bottom of the calyx, and the most tender stalks and young shoots of some plants reckoned to belong to the thistle kind, in the same manner as we use artichokes and cardoons; and that the latter were unknown to them. It appears to me probable that the use of these plants, at least in Italy and Europe in general, was in the course of time laid aside and forgotten, and that the artichoke, when it was first brought to Italy from the Levant, was considered as a new species of food. It is undoubtedly certain that our artichoke was first known in that country in the fifteenth century. Hermolaus Barbarus, who died in 1494, relates that this plant was first seen at Venice in a garden in 1473, at which time it was very scarce625. About the year 1466, one of the family of Strozzi brought the first artichokes to Florence from Naples626. Politian, in a letter in which he describes the dishes he found at a grand entertainment in Italy in 1488, among these mentions artichokes627. They were introduced into France in the beginning of the sixteenth century628; and into England in the reign of Henry the Eighth629.
Respecting the origin of the name various conjectures have been formed, none of which, in my opinion, are founded even on probability. Hermolaus Barbarus, Henry Stephen, Ruellius, Heresbach, and others think that artichoke or artichaut, as it is called by the French, and arciocco by the Italians, is derived from the Greek word coccalus, which signifies a fircone, with the Arabic article al prefixed, from which was formed alcocalon, and afterwards the name now used630. This etymology is contradicted by Salmasius631, who denies that coccalus had ever that signification. He remarks also that artichokes were by the Arabs called harsaf, harxaf, or harchiaf; and he seems not disinclined to derive the name from these appellations632. Grotius, Bodæus, and some others, derive it from a Greek word633, which occurs in Alexander Trallianus, and which is supposed to signify our plant; but that word is to be found in this author alone, and in him only once; so that the idea of these critics appears to me very improbable. Frisch affirms, in his dictionary, that our modern name is formed from carduus and scolymus united. Ihre634 considers the first part of the name as the German word erde (the earth), because it is often pronounced erdschoke; but I rather think that the Germans changed the foreign word arti into the word erde, which was known to them, in the same manner as of tartuffolo we have made erdtoffeln635; besides, Ihre leaves the latter part unexplained636. In the seventeenth century the plant was often called Welsch distel (Italian thistle), because the seeds were procured from Italy, and also Strobeldorn, a word undoubtedly derived from strobilus.
Were the original country of the artichoke really known, the etymology of the name, perhaps, might be easily explained. Linnæus says that it grew wild in Narbonne, Italy, and Sicily, and the cardoons in Crete; but, in my opinion, the information respecting the latter has been taken only from the above-quoted passage of Bellon, which is improperly supposed to allude to the artichoke. As far as I know, it was not found upon that island either by Tournefort or any other traveller. Garidel, however, mentions the artichoke under the name given it by Bauhin, cinara sylvestris latifolia, among the plants growing wild in Provence; but later authors assure us that they sought for it there in vain637. I shall here remark that the artichoke is certainly known in Persia; but Tavernier says expressly that it was carried thither, like asparagus, and other European vegetables of the kitchen-garden, by the Carmelite and other monks; and that it was only in later times that it became common638.
SAW-MILLS
In early periods, the trunks of trees were split with wedges into as many and as thin pieces as possible639; and if it was necessary to have them still thinner, they were hewn on both sides to the proper size. This simple and wasteful manner of making boards has been still continued to the present time. Peter the Great of Russia endeavoured to put a stop to it by forbidding hewn deals to be transported on the river Neva. The saw, however, though so convenient and beneficial, has not been able to banish entirely the practice of splitting timber used in building, or in making furniture and utensils, for I do not speak here of fire-wood; and, indeed, it must be allowed that this method is attended with peculiar advantages, which that of sawing can never possess. The wood-splitters perform their work more expeditiously than sawyers, and split timber is much stronger than that which has been sawn; for the fissure follows the grain of the wood, and leaves it whole; whereas the saw, which proceeds in the line chalked out for it, divides the fibres, and by these means lessens its cohesion and solidity. Split timber, indeed, turns out often crooked and warped; but in many purposes to which it is applied this is not prejudicial; and such faults may sometimes be amended. As the fibres, however, retain their natural length and direction, thin boards, particularly, can be bent much better. This is a great advantage in making pipe-staves, or sieve-frames, which require still more art, and in forming various implements of the like kind.
Our common saw, which needs only to be guided by the hand of the workman, however simple it may be, was not known to the inhabitants of America when they were subdued by the Europeans640. The inventor of this instrument has by the Greeks been inserted in their mythology, with a place in which, among their gods, they honoured the greatest benefactors of the earliest ages. By some he is called Talus, and by others Perdix. Pliny641 alone ascribes the invention to Dædalus; but Hardouin, in the passage where he does so, chooses to read Talus rather than Dædalus. In my opinion, Pliny may have committed an error as well as any of the moderns; and as one writer at present misleads another, Seneca642, who gives the same inventor, may have fallen into a mistake by copying Pliny. Diodorus Siculus643, Apollodorus644, and others name the inventor Talus. He was the son of Dædalus’s sister; and was by his mother placed under the tuition of her brother, to be instructed in his art. Having once found the jaw-bone of a snake, he employed it to cut through a small piece of wood; and by these means was induced to form a like instrument of iron, that is, to make a saw. This invention, which greatly facilitates labour, excited the envy of his master, and instigated him to put Talus to death privately. We are told, that being asked by some one, when he was burying the body, what he was depositing in the earth, he replied, a serpent. This suspicious answer discovered the murder; and thus, adds the historian, a snake was the cause of the invention, of the murder, and of its being found out645.
Hyginus646, Servius647, Fulgentius648, Lactantius Placidus649, Isidorus650, and others call the inventor Perdix. That he was the son of a sister of Dædalus they all agree; but they differ respecting the name of his parents. The mother, by Fulgentius, is called Polycastes, but without any proof; and Lactantius gives to the father the name of Calaus. In Apollodorus, however, the mother of Talus is called Perdix; and the same name is given by Tzetzes to the mother of the inventor, whose name Talus he changes into Attalus651. Perdix, we are told, did not employ for a saw the jaw-bone of a snake, like Talus, but the back-bone of a fish; and this is confirmed by Ovid652, who nevertheless is silent respecting the name of the inventor.
What may be meant by spina piscis it is perhaps difficult to conjecture; but I can by no means make spina dorsi of it, as Dion. Salvagnius has done, in his observations on the passage quoted from Ovid’s Ibis. The small bony processes which project from the spine of a fish have some similitude to a saw; but it would be hardly possible to saw through with them small pieces of wood. These bones are too long, as well as too far distant from each other; and the joints of the back-bone are liable to be dislocated by the smallest force. I am not acquainted with the spine of any fish which would be sufficiently strong for that purpose. The jaw-bone of a fish furnished with teeth would be more proper; but the words spina in medio pisce prevent us from adopting that alteration. I should be inclined rather to explain this difficulty by the bone which projects from the snout of the saw-fish, called by the Romans serra, and by the Greeks pristis. That bone, indeed, might not be altogether unfit for such a use: the teeth are strongly united to the broad bone in the middle, and are capable of resisting a great force; but they are placed at rather too great a distance. The old inhabitants of Madeira, however, we are told, really used this bone instead of a saw653. That Talus found the jaw-bone of a snake with teeth like a saw is extremely probable, for there are many snakes which have teeth of that kind.
The saws of the Grecian carpenters had the same form, and were made in the like ingenious manner as ours are at present. This is fully shown by a painting still preserved among the antiquities of Herculaneum654. Two genii are represented at the end of a bench, which consists of a long table that rests upon two four-footed stools. The piece of wood which is to be sawn through is secured by cramps. The saw with which the genii are at work has a perfect resemblance to our frame-saw. It consists of a square frame, having in the middle a blade, the teeth of which stand perpendicular to the plane of the frame. The piece of wood which is to be sawn extends beyond the end of the bench, and one of the workmen appears standing and the other sitting on the ground. The arms, in which the blade is fastened, have the same form as that given to them at present. In the bench are seen holes, in which the cramps that hold the timber are stuck. They are shaped like the figure seven; and the ends of them reach below the boards that form the top of it. The French call a cramp of this kind un valet655.
Montfaucon656 also has given the representation of two ancient saws taken from Gruter. One of them seems to be only the blade of a saw without any frame; but the other figure I consider as a cross-cut saw; and I think I can distinguish all the parts, though it is imperfectly delineated. One may however perceive both the handles between which the blade is fastened; the wooden bar that binds them together, though the blade is delineated too near it; and about the middle of this bar, the piece of wood that tightens the cord which keeps the handles as well as the whole instrument firm. Saws which were not placed in a frame, but fastened to a handle, are thus described by Palladius657: – “Serrulæ manubriatæ minores majoresque ad mensuram cubiti, quibus facile est, quod per serram fieri non potest, resecando trunco arboris, aut vitis interseri.”
The most beneficial and ingenious improvement of this instrument was, without doubt, the invention of saw-mills, which are driven either by water, wind, [or by steam]. Mills of the first kind were erected so early as the fourth century, in Germany, on the small river Roer or Ruer658; for though Ausonius speaks properly of water-mills for cutting stone, and not timber, it cannot be doubted that these were invented later than mills for manufacturing deals, or that both kinds were erected at the same time. The art however of cutting marble with a saw is very old. Pliny659 conjectures that it was invented in Caria; at least he knew no building incrusted with marble of greater antiquity than the palace of king Mausolus, at Halicarnassus. This edifice is celebrated by Vitruvius660, for the beauty of its marble; and Pliny gives an account of the different kinds of sand used for cutting it; for it is the sand properly, says he, and not the saw, which produces that effect. The latter presses down the former, and rubs it against the marble; and the coarser the sand is, the longer will be the time required to polish the marble which has been cut by it. Stones of the soap-rock kind, which are indeed softer than marble, and which would require less force than wood, were sawn at that period661: but it appears that the far harder glassy kinds of stone were sawn then also; for we are told of the discovery of a building which was encrusted with cut agate, cornelian, lapis lazuli, and amethysts662. I have, however, found no account in any of the Greek or Roman writers of a mill for sawing wood; and as the writers of modern times speak of saw-mills as new and uncommon, it would seem that the oldest construction of them has been forgotten, or that some important improvement has made them appear entirely new.
Becher says, with his usual confidence, that saw-mills were invented in the seventeenth century663. Though this is certainly false, I did not expect to find that there were saw-mills in the neighbourhood of Augsburg so early as the year 1337, as Stetten664 has discovered by the town-books of that place. I shall here insert his own words, in answer to a request I made that he would be so kind as to communicate to me all the information he knew on that subject: – “You are desirous of reading that passage in our town-books, where saw-mills are first mentioned; but it is of very little importance. There is to be found only under the year 1338 the name of a burgher called Giss Saegemuller; and though it may be objected that one cannot from the name infer the existence of the employment, I am of a different opinion; especially as I have lately been able to obtain a proof much more to be depended on. In the surveyors’ book, which I have often before quoted, and which, perhaps, for many centuries has not been seen or consulted by any one, I find under the year 1322, and several times afterwards, sums disbursed under the following title: Molitori dicto Hanrey pro asseribus et swaertlingis. Schwartlings, among us, are the outside deals of the trunk, which in other places are called Schwarten. This word, therefore, makes the existence of a saw-mill pretty certain. As a confirmation of this idea, we have still a mill of that kind which is at present called the Hanrey-mill; and the stream which supplies it with water is called the Hanrey-brook. Since the earliest ages, the ground on which this mill, and the colour, stamping, and oil-mills in the neighbourhood are built, was the property of the hospital of the Holy Ghost. By that hospital it was given as a life-rent to a rich burgher named Erlinger, but returned again in 1417 by his daughter Anna Bittingerin, who had, above and under the Hanrey-mill, two other saw-mills, which still exist, and for which, in virtue of an order of council of that year, she entered into a contract with the hospital in regard to the water and mill-dams.” There were saw-mills, therefore, at Augsburg so early as 1322. This appears to be highly probable also from the circumstance, that such mills occur very often in the following century in many other countries.
When the Infant Henry sent settlers to the island of Madeira, which was discovered in 1420, and caused European fruits of every kind to be carried thither, he ordered saw-mills to be erected also, for the purpose of sawing into deals the various species of excellent timber with which the island abounded, and which were afterwards transported to Portugal665. About the year 1427 the city of Breslau had a saw-mill which produced a yearly rent of three marks; and in 1490 the magistrates of Erfurt purchased a forest, in which they caused a saw-mill to be erected, and they rented another mill in the neighbourhood besides. Norway, which is covered with forests, had the first saw-mill about the year 1530. This mode of manufacturing timber was called the new art; and because the exportation of deals was by these means increased, that circumstance gave occasion to the deal-tythe, introduced by Christian III. in the year 1545666. Soon after the celebrated Henry Ranzau caused the first mill of this kind to be built in Holstein667. In 1552 there was a saw-mill at Joachimsthal, which, as we are told, belonged to Jacob Geusen, mathematician. In the year 1555 the bishop of Ely, ambassador from Mary queen of England to the court of Rome, having seen a saw-mill in the neighbourhood of Lyons, the writer of his travels thought it worthy of a particular description668. In the sixteenth century, however, there were mills with different saw-blades, by which a plank could be cut into several deals at the same time. Pighius saw one of these, in 1575, on the Danube, near Ratisbon, when he accompanied Charles, prince of Juliers and Cleves, on his travels669. It may here be asked whether the Dutch had such mills first, as is commonly believed670. The first saw-mill was erected in Holland at Saardam, in the year 1596; and the invention of it is ascribed to Cornelis Cornelissen671; but he is as little the inventor as the mathematician of Joachimsthal. Perhaps he was the first person who built a saw-mill at that place, which is a village of great trade, and has still a great many saw-mills, though the number of them is becoming daily less; for within the last thirty years a hundred have been given up672. The first mill of this kind in Sweden was erected in the year 1653673. At present, that kingdom possesses the largest perhaps ever constructed in Europe, where a water-wheel, twelve feet broad, drives at the same time seventy-two saws.
