If under this name we comprehend all those machines, however rude,
employed for pounding or grinding corn, these are of the highest
antiquity. We read in the Scriptures, that Abraham caused cakes to
be baked for his guests of the finest meal; and that the manna was
ground like corn. The earliest instrument used for this purpose seems
to have been the mortar; which was retained a long time even after
the invention of mills properly so called, because these perhaps at
first were not attended with much superior advantage[380]. It appears
that in the course of time the mortar was made rigid and the pestle
notched, at least at the bottom; by which means the grain was rather
grated than pounded. A passage of Pliny[381], not yet sufficiently
cleared up, makes this conjecture probable. When a handle was added
to the top of the pestle, that it might be more easily driven round
in a circle, the mortar was converted into a hand-mill. Such a mill
was called _mola trusatilis_, _versatilis_, _manuaria_[382], and was
very little different from those used at present by apothecaries,
painters, potters and other artists, for grinding coarse bodies,
such as colours, glass, chalk, &c. We have reason to suppose that in
every family there was a mill of this kind. Moses forbade them to
be taken in pawn; for that, says he, is the same thing as to take a
man’s life to pledge. Michaelis, on this passage, observes that a man
could not then grind, and consequently could not bake bread for the
daily use of his family[383]. Grinding was at first the employment of
the women, and particularly of the female slaves, as it is at present
among uncivilised nations, and must therefore have required little
strength[384]; but afterwards the mills were driven by bondsmen, around
whose necks was placed a circular machine of wood, so that these poor
wretches could not put their hands to their mouths, or eat of the meal.
In the course of time shafts were added to the mill that it might be
driven by cattle, which were, as at present, blindfolded[385]. The
first cattle-mills, _molæ jumentariæ_, had perhaps only a heavy pestle
like the hand-mills[386]; but it must have been soon remarked that the
labour would be more speedily accomplished if, instead of the pestle,
a large heavy cylindrical stone should be employed. I am of opinion,
however, that the first cattle-mills had not a spout or a trough as
ours have at present; at least the hand-mills which Tournefort[387] saw
at Nicaria, and which consisted of two stones, had neither; but the
meal which issued from between the stones, through an opening made in
the upper one, fell upon a board or table, on which the lower stone,
that was two feet in diameter, rested.
The upper mill-stone was called _meta_, or _turbo_; and the lower one
_catillus_. _Meta_ signified also a cone with a blunt apex[388]; and
it has on that account been conjectured that corn was at first rubbed
into meal by rolling over it a conical stone flatted at the end, in the
same manner as painters at present make use of a grinding-stone; and
it is believed that the same name was afterwards given to the upper
mill-stone. This conjecture is not improbable, as some rude nations
still bruise their corn by grinding-stones. I do not, however, remember
any passage in the ancients that mentions this mode of grinding; and I
am of opinion, that the pestle of the hand-mill, for which the upper
mill-stone was substituted, may, on account of its figure, have been
also called _meta_. Niebuhr[389] found in Arabia, besides hand-mills,
some grinding-stones, which differed from those used by us in their
consisting not of a flat, but of an oblong hollow stone, or trough,
with a pestle, which was not conical, but shaped like a spindle, thick
in the middle and pointed at both ends. In this stone the corn, after
being soaked in water, was ground to meal and then baked into cakes.
Respecting the figure and construction of the ancient hand-mills, I
expected to find some information from engraved stones, and other
remains of antiquity; but my researches would have proved fruitless,
had not Professor Diez, to whose memory and erudition I am much
indebted, pointed out to me the only figure of one remaining. I say the
only one remaining with the more confidence, as Heyne tells us also
that he remembers no other. Anthony Francis Gori[390] has described
a red jasper, on which is engraved the naked figure of a man, who in
his left-hand holds a sheaf of corn, and in his right a machine that
in all probability is a hand-mill. Gori considers the figure as a
representation of the god Eunostus, who, as Suidas says, was the god of
mills. The machine, which Eunostus seems to exhibit, or to be surveying
himself, is, as far as one can distinguish (for the stone is scarcely
half an inch in size), shaped like a chest, narrow at the top, and wide
at the bottom. It stands upon a table, and in the bottom there is a
perpendicular pipe from which the meal, represented also by the artist,
appears to be issuing. Above, the chest or body of the mill has either
a top with an aperture, or perhaps a basket sunk into it, from which
the corn falls into the mill. On one side, nearly about the middle of
it, there projects a broken shank, which, without overstraining the
imagination, may be considered as a handle, or that part of the mill
which some called _molile_. Though this figure is small, and though
it conveys very little idea of the internal construction, one may,
however, conclude from it, that the roller, whether it was of wood
or of iron, smooth or notched, did not stand perpendicularly, like
those of our coffee-mills, but lay horizontally; which gives us reason
to conjecture a construction more ingenious than that of the first
invention. The axis of the handle had, perhaps, within the body of
the mill, a crown-wheel, that turned a spindle, to the lower end of
the perpendicular axis of which the roller was fixed. Should this be
admitted, it must be allowed also, that the hand-mills of the ancients
had not so much a resemblance to the before-mentioned colour-mills as
to the philosophical mills of our chemists; and Langelott consequently
will not be the real inventor of the latter. On the other side,
opposite to that where the handle is, there arise from the mill of
Eunostus two shafts, which Gori considers as those of a besom and a
shovel, two instruments used in grinding; but as the interior part
cannot be seen, it appears to me doubtful whether these may not be
parts of the mill itself.
The remains of a pair of old Roman mill-stones were found in the
beginning of the last century at Adel in Yorkshire, a description of
which was given by Thornsby[391], in the Philosophical Transactions.
One of the stones was twenty inches in breadth; thicker in the middle
than at the edges, and consequently convex on one side. The other was
of the same form, but had that thickness at the edges which the other
had in the middle, and some traces of notching could be observed upon
it.
I shall not here collect all those passages of the ancients which
speak of hand- and cattle-mills, because they have been already
collected by others, and afford very little information[392]. Neither
shall I inquire to what Ceres the Grecians ascribed the invention of
mills[393]; who Milantes was, to whom that honour has been given by
Stephanus Byzantinus[394]; or how those mills were constructed which
were first built by Myletes the son of Lelex, king of Laconia[395].
Such researches would be attended with little advantage. I shall
proceed therefore to the invention of water-mills.
These appear to have been introduced in the time of Mithridates,
Julius Cæsar, and Cicero. Because Strabo[396] relates that there was a
water-mill near the residence of Mithridates, some have ascribed the
honour of the invention to him; but nothing more can with certainty
be concluded from this circumstance, than that water-mills were at
that period known, at least in Asia. We are told by Pomponius Sabinus,
in his remarks upon a poem of Virgil called Moretus, that the first
mill seen at Rome was erected on the Tiber, a little before the time
of Augustus; but of this he produces no proof. As he has taken the
greater part of his remarks from the illustrations of Servius, and
must have had a much completer copy of that author than any that has
been printed, he may have derived this information from the same
source[397]. The most certain proof that Rome had water-mills in the
time of Augustus is the description which has been given of them by
Vitruvius (lib. x. 10). We learn from this passage, that the ancients
had wheels for raising water, which were driven by being trod upon by
men. That condemnation to these machines was a punishment, appears
from Artemidorus, lib. i. c. 50, and Sueton. Vita Tiber. cap. 51. And
the pretty epigram of Antipater; “Cease your work, ye maids, ye who
laboured in the mill; sleep now, and let the birds sing to the ruddy
morning; for Ceres has commanded the water-nymphs to perform your task:
these, obedient to her call, throw themselves on the wheel, force round
the axle-tree, and by these means the heavy mill.” This Antipater[398],
as Salmasius with great probability asserts, lived in the time of
Cicero. Palladius[399] also speaks with equal clearness of water-mills,
which he advises to be built on possessions that have running water, in
order to grind corn without men or cattle.
There are also other passages of the ancients which are commonly
supposed, but without certain grounds, to allude to water-mills. Among
these is the following verse of Lucretius[400]:
Ut fluvios versare rotas atque haustra videmus.
It appears also that the water-wheels to which Heliogabalus caused some
of his friends and parasites to be bound[401], cannot be considered
as mills. These, as well as the _haustra_ of Lucretius, were machines
for raising water, like those mentioned in the before-quoted passage
of Vitruvius[402]. It is however evident that there were water-mills
at Rome at this period; and it affords matter of surprise that we do
not find mention oftener made of them, and that they did not entirely
banish the use of the laborious hand- and cattle-mills. That this was
not the case, and that the latter were very numerous for some time
after, may be concluded from various circumstances. When Caligula,
about twenty-three years after the death of Augustus, took away all
the horses and cattle from the mills, in order to transport effects
of every kind which he had seized, there arose a scarcity of bread at
Rome; from which Beroaldus justly infers that water-mills must have
been then very rare[403]. Nay, more than three hundred years after
Augustus, cattle-mills were so common at Rome, that their number
amounted to three hundred[404]. Mention of them, and of the hand-mills
always occurs, therefore, for a long time after in the laws. The Jurist
Paulus, who lived about the year 240, particularizing the bequest of
a baker, mentions _asina molendaria_ and _mola_, a mill-ass and a
mill[405]. In the year 319 Constantine ordered that all the slaves
condemned to the mills should be brought from Sardinia to Rome[406].
Such orders respecting mill-slaves occur also under Valentinian[407].
When by the introduction of Christianity, however, the morals of men
became improved, slaves were less frequent; and Ausonius, who lived
under Theodosius the Great, about the end of the third century,
expressly says, that in his time the practice had ceased of condemning
criminals to slavery, and of causing mills to be driven by men.
Public water-mills, however, appear for the first time under Honorius
and Arcadius; and the oldest laws which mention them, about the year
398, show clearly that they were then a new establishment, which it was
necessary to secure by the support of government; and the orders for
that purpose were renewed and made more severe by Zeno towards the end
of the fifth century[408]. It is worthy of remark, that in the whole
code of Justinian one does not find the least mention of wooden pales
or posts, which occur in all the new laws; and which, when there were
several mills situated in a line on the same stream, occasioned so many
disputes. The mills at Rome were erected on those canals which conveyed
water to the city; and because these were employed in several arts, and
for various purposes, it was ordered that by dividing the water the
mills should be always kept going. The greater part of them lay under
Mount Janiculum[409]; but, as they were driven by so small a quantity
of water, they probably executed very little work; and for this reason,
but chiefly on account of the great number of slaves, and the cheap
rate at which they were maintained, these noble machines were not so
much used, nor were so soon brought to perfection as they might have
been. It appears, however, that after the abolition of slavery they
were much improved and more employed; and to this a particular incident
seems in some measure to have contributed.
When Vitiges, king of the Goths, besieged Belisarius in Rome, in the
year 536, and caused the fourteen large expensive aqueducts to be
stopped, the city was subjected to great distress; not through the want
of water in general, because it was secured against that inconvenience
by the Tiber; but by the loss of that water which the baths required,
and, above all, of that necessary to drive the mills, which were all
situated on these canals. Horses and cattle, which might have been
employed in grinding, were not to be found: but Belisarius fell upon
the ingenious contrivance of placing boats upon the Tiber, on which
he erected mills that were driven by the current. This experiment was
attended with complete success; and as many mills of this kind as were
necessary were constructed. To destroy these, the besiegers threw into
the stream logs of wood and dead bodies, which floated down the river
into the city; but the besieged, by making use of booms, to stop them,
were enabled to drag them out before they could do any mischief[410].
This seems to be the invention of floating-mills, at least I know of no
other. It is certain that by these means the use of water-mills became
very much extended; for floating-mills can be constructed almost upon
any stream, without forming an artificial fall; they can be stationed
at the most convenient places, and they rise and fall of themselves
with the water. They are however attended with these inconveniences,
that they require to be strongly secured; that they often block up the
stream too much, and move slowly; and that they frequently stop when
the water is too high, or when it is frozen.
After this improvement the use of water-mills was never laid aside or
forgotten: they were soon made known all over Europe; and were it worth
the trouble, one might quote passages in which they are mentioned in
every century. The Roman, Salic, and other laws[411] provided security
for these mills, which they call _molina_ or _farinaria_; and define a
punishment for those who destroy the sluices, or steal the mill-irons
(_ferramentum_). But there were water-mills in Germany and France a
hundred years before the Salic laws were formed. Ausonius, who lived
about the year 379, mentions some which were then still remaining on a
small stream that falls into the Moselle, and which were noticed also
by Fortunatus[412], in the fifth century. Gregory of Tours, who wrote
towards the end of the sixth century, speaks of a water-mill which was
situated near the town of Dijon; and of another which a certain abbot
caused to be built for the benefit of his convent[413]. Brito, who in
the beginning of the thirteenth century wrote in verse an account of
the actions of Philip Augustus king of France[414], relates how by
the piercing of a dam the mills near Gournay (_castrum Gornacum_ or
_Cornacum_) were destroyed, to the great detriment of the besieged.
In the first crusade, at the end of the eleventh century, the Germans
burned in Bulgaria seven mills which were situated below a bridge on
a small rivulet, and which seem to have been floating-mills[415]. In
deeds of the twelfth and thirteenth century, water-mills are often
called _aquimollia_, _aquimoli_, _aquismoli_, _aquimolæ_[416]. Petrus
Damiani, one of the fathers of the eleventh century, says, “Sicut
aquimolum nequaquam potest sine gurgitis inundantia frumenta permolere,
ita, &c.[417]”
At Venice and other places, there were mills which righted themselves
by the ebbing and flowing of the tide, and which every six hours
changed the position of the wheels. Zanetti[418] has shown, from some
old charters, that such mills existed about the year 1044; and with
still more certainty in 1078, 1079, and 1107. In one charter are the
words: _Super toto ipso aquimolo molendini posito in palude juxta
campo alto_; where the expression _aquimolum molendini_ deserves
to be particularly remarked, as it perhaps indicates that the mill
in question was a proper grinding-mill. Should this conjecture be
well-founded, it would prove that so early as the eleventh century
water-mills were used not only for grinding corn, but for many other
purposes.
It appears that hand- and cattle-mills were everywhere still retained
at private houses a long time after the erection of water-mills. We
read in the Life of St. Benedict, that he had a mill with an ass, to
grind corn for himself and his colleagues. Among the legendary tales
of St. Bertin, there is one of a woman who, because she ground corn on
a fast-day, lost the use of her arm; and of another whose hand stuck
to the handle, because she undertook the same work at an unseasonable
time. More wonders of this kind are to be found at later periods in the
Popish mythology. Such small mills remained long in the convents; and
it was considered as a great merit in many ecclesiastics, that they
ground their own corn in order to make bread. The real cause of this
was, that as the convents were entirely independent of every person
without their walls, they wished to supply all their wants themselves
as far as possible; and as these lazy ecclesiastics had, besides, too
little labour and exercise, they employed grinding as an amusement,
and to enable them to digest better their ill-deserved food. Sulpicius
Severus[419] gives an account of the mode of living of an Eastern monk
in the beginning of the fifth century, and says expressly that he
ground his own corn. Gregory of Tours mentions an abbot who eased his
monks of their labour at the hand-mill, by erecting a water-mill. It
deserves here to be remarked, that in the sixth century malefactors
in France were condemned to the mill, as is proved by the history of
Septimina the nurse of Childebert[420].
The entrusting of that violent element water to support and drive mills
constructed with great art, displayed no little share of boldness; but
it was still more adventurous to employ the no less violent but much
more untractable, and always changeable wind for the same purpose.
Though the strength and direction of the wind cannot be any way
altered, it has however been found possible to devise means by which
a building can be moved in such a manner that it shall be exposed to
neither more nor less wind than is necessary, let it come from what
quarter it may.
It is very improbable, or much rather false, that the Romans had
wind-mills, though Pomponius Sabinus affirms so, but without any
proof[421]. Vitruvius[422], where he speaks of all moving forces,
mentions also the wind; but he does not say a word of wind-mills; nor
are they noticed either by Seneca[423] or Chrysostom[424], who have
both spoken of the advantages of the wind. I consider as false also,
the account given by an old Bohemian annalist[425], who says that
before the year 718 there were none but wind-mills in Bohemia, and that
water-mills were then introduced for the first time. I am of opinion
that the author meant to have written _hand- and cattle-mills_ instead
of _wind-mills_.
It has been often asserted that these mills were first invented in
the East, and introduced into Europe by the crusaders; but this also
is improbable; for mills of this kind are not at all, or very seldom,
found in the East. There are none of them in Persia, Palestine, or
Arabia, and even water-mills are there uncommon, and constructed on a
small scale. Besides, we find wind-mills before the crusades, or at
least at the time when they were first undertaken. It is probable that
these buildings may have been made known to a great part of Europe,
and particularly in France and England[426], by those who returned
from these expeditions; but it does not thence follow that they were
invented in the East[427]. The crusaders perhaps saw such mills in the
course of their travels through Europe; very probably in Germany, which
is the original country of most large machines. In the like manner, the
knowledge of several useful things has been introduced into Germany
by soldiers who have returned from different wars; as the English and
French, after their return from the last war, made known in their
respective countries many of our useful implements of husbandry, such
as our straw-chopper, scythe, &c.
Mabillon mentions a diploma of the year 1105, in which a convent
in France is allowed to erect water- and wind-mills, _molendina ad
ventum_[428]. In the year 1143, there was in Northamptonshire an abbey
(Pipewell) situated in a wood, which in the course of 180 years was
entirely destroyed. One cause of its destruction was said to be, that
in the whole neighbourhood there was no house, wind- or water-mill
built, for which timber was not taken from this wood[429]. In the
twelfth century, when these mills began to be more common, a dispute
arose whether the tithes of them belonged to the clergy; and Pope
Celestine III. determined the question in favour of the church[430]. In
the year 1332, one Bartolomeo Verde proposed to the Venetians to build
a wind-mill. When his plan had been examined, a piece of ground was
assigned to him, which he was to retain in case his undertaking should
succeed within a time specified[431]. In the year 1393, the city of
Spires caused a wind-mill to be erected, and sent to the Netherlands
for a person acquainted with the method of grinding by it[432]. A
wind-mill was also constructed at Frankfort in 1442, but I do not know
whether there had not been such there before.
To turn the mill to the wind, two methods have been invented. The
whole building is constructed in such a manner as to turn on a post
below, or the roof alone, together with the axle-tree, and the wings
are moveable. Mills of the former kind are called German-mills, those
of the latter Dutch. They are both moved round either by a wheel
and pinion within, or by a long lever without[433]. I am inclined
to believe that the German-mills are older than the Dutch; for
the earliest descriptions which I can remember, speak only of the
former. Cardan[434], in whose time wind-mills were very common both
in France and Italy, makes however no mention of the latter; and the
Dutch themselves affirm, that the mode of building with a moveable
roof was first found out by a Fleming in the middle of the sixteenth
century[435]. Those mills, by which in Holland the water is drawn up
and thrown off from the land, one of which was built at Alkmaar in
1408, another at Schoonhoven in 1450, and a third at Enkhuisen in
1452, were at first driven by horses, and afterwards by wind. But as
these mills were immoveable, and could work only when the wind was in
one quarter, they were afterwards placed not on the ground, but on a
float which could be moved round in such a manner that the mill should
catch every wind[436]. This method gave rise perhaps to the invention
of moveable mills.
It is highly probable, that in the early ages men were satisfied with
only grinding their corn, and that in the course of time they fell upon
the invention of separating the meal from the pollard or bran. This
was at first done by a sieve moved with the hands; and even yet in
France, when what is called _mouture en grosse_ is employed, there is a
particular place for bolting, where the sieve is moved with the hand by
means of a handle. It is customary also in many parts of Lower Saxony
and Alsace, to bolt the flour separately; for which purpose various
sieves are necessary. The Romans had two principal kinds, _cribra
excussoria_ and _pollinaria_, the latter of which gave the finest
flour, called _pollen_. Sieves of horse-hair were first made by the
Gauls, and those of linen by the Spaniards[437]. The method of applying
a sieve in the form of an extended bag to the works of the mill, that
the meal might fall into it as it came from the stones, and of causing
it to be turned and shaken by the machinery, was first made known in
the beginning of the sixteenth century, as we are expressly told in
several ancient chronicles[438].
This invention gave rise to an employment which at present maintains
a great many people; I mean that of preparing bolting-cloths, or
those kinds of cloth through which meal is sifted in mills. As
this cloth is universally used, a considerable quantity of it is
consumed. For one bolting-cloth, five yards are required; we may
allow, therefore, twenty-five to each mill in the course of a year.
When this is considered, it will not appear improbable, that the
electorate of Saxony, according to a calculation made towards the end
of the seventeenth century, when manufactories of this cloth were
established, paid for it yearly to foreigners from twelve to fifteen
thousand rix-dollars. That kind of bolting-cloth also which is used
for a variety of needle-work, for young ladies’ samplers, and for
filling up the frames of window-screens, &c., is wove after the manner
of gauze, of fine-spun woollen yarn. One might imagine that this
manufacture could not be attended with any difficulty; yet it requires
many ingenious operations which the Germans cannot easily perform, and
with which they are, perhaps, not yet perfectly acquainted. However
this may be, large quantities of bolting-cloth are imported from
England. It indeed costs half as much again per yard as the German
cloth, but it lasts much longer. A bolting-cloth of English manufacture
will continue good three months, but one of German will last scarcely
three weeks. The wool necessary for making this cloth must be long,
well-washed, and spun to a fine equal thread, which, before it is
scoured, must be scalded in hot water to prevent it from shrinking.
The web must be stiffened; and in this the English have an advantage
we have not yet been able to attain. Their bolting-cloth is stiffer
as well as smoother, and lets the flour much better through it than
ours, which is either very little or not at all stiffened. The places
where this cloth is made are also not numerous. A manufactory of it
was established at Ostra, near Dresden, by Daniel Kraft, about the end
of the seventeenth century; and to raise him a capital for carrying it
on, every mill was obliged to pay him a dollar. Hartau, near Zittau,
is indebted for its manufactory to Daniel Plessky, a linen-weaver of
the latter, who learned the art of making bolting-cloth in Hungary,
when on a visit to his relations, and was enabled to carry it on by the
assistance of a schoolmaster named Strietzel. Since that period this
business has been continued there, and become common[439]. The cloth
which is sent for sale, not only everywhere around the country, but
also to Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia, is wove in pieces. Each piece
contains from sixty-four to sixty-five Leipsic ells: the narrowest is
ten, and the widest fourteen inches in breadth. A piece of the former
costs at present from four to about four dollars and a half, and one
of the latter six dollars. This cloth, it must be allowed, is not very
white; but it is not liable to spoil by lying in warehouses. Large
quantities of bolting-cloth are made also by a company in the duchy of
Wurtemberg. At what time this art was introduced there I cannot say;
for every thing I know of it I am indebted to a friend, who collected
for me the following information in his return through that country.
The cloth is not wove in a manufactory, but by eighteen or twenty
master weavers, under the inspection of a company who pay them, and
who supply all the materials. The company alone has the privilege of
dealing in this cloth; and the millers must purchase from their agents
whatever quantity they have occasion for[440]. The millers however
choose rather, if they can, to supply themselves privately with foreign
and other home-made bolting-cloth, as they complain that the weavers
engaged by the company do not bestow sufficient care to render their
cloth durable: besides, the persons employed to carry about this cloth
for sale, often purchase secretly cloth of an inferior quality in other
places, and sell it as that of the company. Bolting-cloth is made also
at Gera, as well as at Potsdam and Berlin; at the latter of which there
is a manufactory of it carried on by the Jews.
For some years past the French have so much extolled a manner of
grinding called _mouture économique_, that one might almost consider
it as a new invention, which ought to form an epoch in the history of
the miller’s art. This art, which however is not new, consists in not
grinding the flour so fine at once as one may wish, and in putting the
meal afterwards several times through the mill, and sifting it through
various sieves. This method, which in reality has nothing in it either
very ingenious or uncommon, was known to the ancient Romans, as we
may conclude from the account of Pliny, who names the different kinds
of meal, such as _similago_, _simila_, _flos_, _pollen_, _cibarium_,
&c.; for these words are not synonymous, but express clearly all the
various kinds of meal or flour which were procured from the same corn
by repeated grinding and sifting. In general, the Romans had advanced
very far in this art[441]; and they knew how to prepare from corn more
kinds of meal, and from meal more kinds of bread, than the French
have hitherto been able to obtain. Pliny reckons that bread should be
one-third heavier than the meal used for baking it; and that this was
the proportion in Germany above a hundred years ago, is known from
experiments on bread made at different times, which, however uncertain
they may always have been, give undoubtedly more bread than meal[442].
In latter times the arts of grinding and of baking have declined very
much in Italy; and sensible Italians readily acknowledge that their
bread is much inferior to that of most parts of Europe, and that in
this respect the Germans are their masters[443]. Rome indeed forms
an exception; for one can procure there as good bread as in Germany;
but it is necessary to acquaint the reader, that it is not baked by
Italians but by Germans; and all the bread and biscuit baked at Venice
in the public ovens, either for home consumption, the use of shipping,
or for exportation, is the work of German masters and journeymen. They
are called to Venice expressly for that purpose; and at Rome they form
at present a company, and have a very elegant church. The ovens of
these German bakers are seldom suffered to cool, and the greater part
of the owners of them become rich; but as through avarice they often
continue their labour, without interruption, in the greatest heat for
several days and nights, scarcely one in ten of them lives to return
with his wealth to Germany. The Germans have, it is certain, long
supplied the inhabitants of proud Rome, the metropolis of Catholic
Christendom, with bread; for in the fifteenth century it was customary
in all the great families to use no other than German bread, as is very
circumstantially related by Felix Fabri, a Dominican monk, who wrote
about the end of the above century, and died in 1502[444].
The _mouture économique_ has been long known in Germany. Sebastian
Muller, in the beginning of the seventeenth century, gave so clear
a description of it, that the French even acknowledge it[445]. This
author says that one Butré, who came to Germany to teach the Germans
to grind and to bake, was not a little disconcerted when he found his
scholars more expert than their officious master, and that he met
with nothing to console him but that, according to his opinion, the
mill-stones at Carlsruhe were too small, and that the bolting-sieves
were not made in the same manner as those at Paris[446].
Millers and bakers, even in France, practised sometimes this method
of grinding so early as the sixteenth century; but it was some time
forbidden by the police as hurtful. In the year 1546, those were
threatened with punishment who should grind their corn twice[447];
and in 1658 this threat was renewed, and the cause added, that such a
practice was prejudicial to the health[448]. Such prohibitions however,
made by the police without sufficient grounds, could not prevent
intelligent persons from remarking that the bran still contained meal,
which, when separated from it, would be as proper for food as the
first. Those who had observed this were induced, by the probability
of advantage, to try to separate the remaining meal from the bran;
and the attempt was attended with success, but it was necessary to
keep it concealed. Malouin relates, that above a hundred years before,
a miller at Senlis employed this method, and that the same practice
was generally, though privately, introduced at all the mills in the
neighbourhood. There were people who made a trade of purchasing bran in
order to separate it from the meal, which they sold; and it is probable
that many of them carried the art too far, and even ground bran along
with the meal. This was done chiefly during times of scarcity, as in
the year 1709. As men at that time were attentive to every advantage,
this art was more known and more used, so that at length it became
common. The clergy of the royal chapel and parish church at Versailles
sent their wheat to be ground at an adjacent mill; it was, according
to custom, put through the mill only once, and the bran, which still
contained a considerable quantity of meal, was sold for fattening
cattle. In time, the miller, having learned the _mouture économique_,
purchased the bran from these ecclesiastics, and found that it yielded
him as good flour as they procured from the whole wheat. The miller
at length discovered to them the secret, and gave them afterwards
fourteen bushels of flour from their wheat, instead of eight which he
had given them before. This voluntary discovery of the miller was made
in 1760, and it is probable that the art was disclosed by more at the
same time. A baker named Malisset proposed to the lieutenant-général
de police to teach a method, by which people could grind their corn
with more advantage; and experiments were set on foot and published,
which proved the possibility of it. A mealman of Senlis, named Buquet,
who had the inspection of the mill belonging to the large hospital at
Paris, made the same proposal; the result of his experiments, conducted
under the direction of magistrates, was printed; the investigation of
this art was now taken up by men of learning, who gave it a suitable
name; and they explained it, made calculations on it, and recommended
it so much, that the _mouture économique_ engaged the attention of
all the magistrates throughout France[449]. Government sent Buquet to
Lyons in 1764, to Bordeaux in 1766, to Dijon in 1767, and to Montdidier
in 1768; and the benefit which France at present derives from this
improvement is well worth that trouble. Before that period, a Paris
_sétier_ yielded from eighty to ninety pounds of meal, and from one
hundred and fifty to one hundred and sixty pounds of bran; but the same
quantity yields now one hundred and eighty-five, and according to the
latest improvements one hundred and ninety-five pounds of meal. In the
time of St. Louis, from four to five _sétiers_ were reckoned necessary
for the yearly maintenance of a man, and these even were scarcely
sufficient; as many were allowed to the patients in the hospital aux
Quinze-Vingts; and such was the calculation made by Budée in the
sixteenth century[450]. When the miller’s art was everywhere improved,
these four _sétiers_ were reduced to three and a half, and after the
latest improvements to two.
Mills by which grain is only freed from the husk and rounded, are
called barley-mills, and belong to the new inventions. At first barley
was prepared only by pounding, but afterwards by grinding; and as it
was more perfectly rounded by the latter method, it was distinguished
from that made by pounding by the name of pearl-barley. Barley-mills
differ very little in their construction from meal-mills; and
machinery for striking barley is generally added to the latter. The
principal difference is that the mill-stone is rough-hewn around its
circumference; and, instead of an under-stone, has below it a wooden
case, within which it revolves, and which, in the inside, is lined with
a plate of iron pierced like a grater, with holes, the sharp edges of
which turn upwards. The barley is thrown upon the stone, which, as
it runs round, draws it in, frees it from the husk, and rounds it;
after which it is put into sieves and sifted. At Ulm, however, the
well-known Ulm barley is struck by a common mill, after the stones
have been separated a sufficient distance from each other. The first
kind of barley-mills is a German invention. In Holland the first was
erected at Saardam not earlier than the year 1660. This mill, which
at first was called the Pellikaan, scarcely produced in several years
profit sufficient to maintain a family; but in the beginning of the
last century there were at Saardam fifty barley-mills, which brought
considerable gain to their proprietors[451].
As long as the natural freedom of man continued unrestrained by a
multiplicity of laws, every person was at liberty to build on his own
lands and possessions whatever he thought proper, and not only water-
but also wind-mills. This freedom was not abridged even by the Roman
law[452]. But as it is the duty of rulers to consult what is best for
the whole society under their protection, princes took care that no one
should make such use of common streams as might impede or destroy their
public utility[453]. On this account no individual was permitted to
construct a bridge over any stream; and it is highly probable that the
proprietors of land, when water-mills began to be numerous, restrained,
from the same principle, the liberty of erecting them, and allowed
them only, when after a proper investigation they were declared to
be not detrimental. Water-mills, therefore, were included among what
were called _regalia_; and among these they are expressly reckoned by
the emperor Frederic I.[454] On small streams however which were not
navigable, the proprietors of the banks might build mills everywhere
along them[455].
The avarice of landholders, favoured by the meanness and injustice of
governments, and by the weakness of the people, extended this regality
not only over all streams, but also over the air and wind-mills. The
oldest example of this with which I am at present acquainted, is
related by Jargow[456]. In the end of the fourteenth century, the monks
of the celebrated but long since destroyed monastery of Augustines, at
Windsheim, in the province of Overyssel, were desirous of erecting a
wind-mill not far from Zwoll; but a neighbouring lord endeavoured to
prevent them, declaring that the wind in that district belonged to him.
The monks, unwilling to give up their point, had recourse to the bishop
of Utrecht, under whose jurisdiction the province had continued since
the tenth century. The bishop, highly incensed against the pretender
who wished to usurp his authority, affirmed that no one had power over
the wind within his diocese but himself and the church at Utrecht, and
he immediately granted full power, by letters patent, dated 1391, to
the convent at Windsheim, to build for themselves and their successors
a good wind-mill, in any place which they might find convenient[457].
In the like manner the city of Haerlem obtained leave from Albert count
palatine of the Rhine to build a wind-mill in the year 1394[458].
Another restraint to which men in power subjected the weak, in regard
to mills, was, that vassals were obliged to grind their corn at their
lord’s mill, for which they paid a certain value in kind. The oldest
account of such ban-mills, _molendina bannaria_, occurs in the eleventh
century. Fulbert, bishop of Chartres, and chancellor of France, in a
letter to Richard duke of Normandy, complains that attempts began to
be made to compel the inhabitants of a part of that province to grind
their corn at a mill situated at the distance of five leagues[459]. In
the chronicle of the Benedictine monk Hugo de Flavigny, who lived in
the eleventh and twelfth century, we find mention of _molendina quatuor
cum banno ipsius villæ_[460]. More examples of this servitude, _secta
ad molendinum_, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, may be seen in
Du Fresne, under the words _molendinum bannale_.
It is not difficult to account for the origin of these ban-mills.
When the people were once subjected to the yoke of slavery, they were
obliged to submit to more and severer servitudes, which, as monuments
of feudal tyranny, have continued even to more enlightened times. De
la Mare[461] gives an instance where a lord, in affranchising his
subjects, required of them, in remembrance of their former subjection,
and that he might draw as much from them in future as possible, that
they should agree to pay a certain duty, and to send their corn to be
ground at his mill, their bread to be baked in his oven, and their
grapes to be pressed at his wine-press. But the origin of these
servitudes might perhaps be accounted for on juster grounds. The
building of mills was at all times expensive, and undertaken only by
the rich, who, to indemnify themselves for the money expended in order
to benefit the public, stipulated that the people in the neighbourhood
should grind their corn at no other mills than those erected by them.