XIV. Secum jungi nequit sine plumbo nigro, nec plumbum nigrum inter se
jungi potest sinealbo[a][x].
XV. Gignitur in _Hispania_[h]; Lusitania[a][h] Gallæcia[a], in
Iberia[k][l], apud Artabros[h], in _Britannia_[j]: in insulis quæ
Cassiterides dictæ sunt Græcis[e][f][h][k][w], in insula quam Mictim
vocat Timæus, et a Britannia sex dierum navigatione abesse refert[g];
in insulis Hesperidibus[m][n][o] apud _Drangas_ populos Persicos
regionis Arianæ[i].[524]
To this I shall add the following illustration. The name _cassiteron_
is supposed, in general, to be derived from the Phœnician or
Chaldaic[525]; but on this point I am not able to decide. Mela,
where he explains the name of the Cassiterian islands, calls it only
_plumbum_, without the addition of any epithet, unless it has been
lost in transcribing. But Pliny himself says[526], “Cassiterides dictæ
Græcis a fertilitate plumbi.” It is possible, therefore, that the
leaden vessels, which are often mentioned in the works of the ancients,
were in part tin; but I cannot possibly agree with Millin[527], who
makes the _cyanos_ of Homer to be tin. This word evidently denotes
mountain-green, or some species of stone coloured by it, which in
former times, like the lapis lazuli at present, was employed for making
various kinds of ornaments. Besides, _cyanos_ and _cassiteros_ are
mentioned in the Iliad[528] as two different things[529].
What Pliny says of the colour and weight of those minerals that
produced tin, corresponds exceedingly well with tin ore, which, as is
well known, is among the heaviest of minerals, though the specific
gravity of the metal itself is but small. It is also true that lead is
seldom found without silver; and tin perhaps has never been found with
the latter. What we read in regard to the obtaining of tin ore, agrees
very well with our washing-works. Even at present the greater part of
the tin ores are found in fragments and washed.
The smelting of this metal, even when all the rules of art are not
employed, is attended with little difficulty, though Goguet is of a
different opinion. As of all metals it melts easiest in the fire, it
requires only a small degree of heat and no artificial furnace; but
as it is readily calcined, and after repeated reduction loses its
malleability, care must be taken that the reduced metal can immediately
flow off; and on that account our furnaces have an aperture always kept
open. It is probable that the ancients, in their small furnaces, could
easily make a similar arrangement.
Tin at all times must have been dearer than lead, as the latter was
found in abundance, but the former in small quantities. In England at
present tin costs about four times as much as lead. At Hamburg, in
1794, a pound of English block tin cost eleven schillings and a half,
and tin in bars thirteen schillings; but a hundred pounds of English
lead were worth at that time only fourteen marks, and Goslar lead
eleven and a half marks ready money.
That tin melts easier than lead is very true. According to the latest
experiments the former fuses at 442°, whereas lead requires 612° of
Fahrenheit’s thermometer. Both metals can be fused in paper when it
is closely wrapped round them. Aristotle and Pliny meant to say the
same thing of their paper; and the latter adds that the paper, even
when it became torn, was not burnt. What the first says of melting in
water, some have too inconsiderately declared to be a fable; but it is
not entirely false. Tin, when mixed with lead and bismuth in certain
proportions, is so fusible that it melts in boiling water, because it
requires less heat to be fused than water does to be brought to a state
of ebullition. That the Celtic tin contained a great deal of lead,
appears from the observation, that when rubbed it made the fingers
black; an effect which would not have been produced by pure tin.
That tin in the time of Pliny was mixed with lead, and in various
proportions, we are told by himself. At that period a mixture of
equal parts tin and lead was called _argentarium_; and that of two
parts lead and one part tin, _tertiarium_. Others mixed the latter
composition with an equal quantity of tin, and named the mixture also
_argentarium_, and this was commonly used for tinning.
I must, however, acknowledge that the last words of Pliny I do not
fully comprehend. They have not indeed been noticed by any commentator;
but I do not on that account believe that I am the only person to whom
they have been in part unintelligible. Savot and Watson[530], who were
undoubtedly capable of giving some decisive opinion on them, have
purposely left that part, which to me appears obscure, untranslated and
without any explanation. Pliny says, “Improbiores ad tertiarium additis
æquis partibus albi, argentarium vocant, et eo quæ volunt, incoquunt.”
He seems here to throw out a reproach against those who melted together
equal quantities of _tertiarium_ and pure tin, and then gave it the
name of _argentarium_, as if it had been of an inferior quality to the
_argentarium_ first named. But equal quantities of _tertiarium_ and
pure tin produced a mixture, in which for _one_ part of lead there
were _two_ of tin. How then could those who made this mixture be called
_improbiores_? To answer this question I shall venture to give my
conjecture. Pliny perhaps meant to say, that tinning properly ought to
be done with pure tin, but that unprincipled artists employed for that
purpose tin mixed with lead. If this be the true meaning, his reproach
was not unfounded. On the same account, because all tin was then
adulterated with lead, Galen gives cautions against the use of tinned
vessels, and advises people to preserve medicines rather in glass
or in golden vessels. But why does Pliny add, “ideo album nulli rei
sine mixtura utile?” In using these words, it is possible he may have
alluded, not to tinning, but to things cast of tin, which, according
to the ideas of that time or the nature of the tin, if of that metal
alone, would be too brittle. This seems to be said by the preceding
words, to which the _ideo_ refers: “albi natura plus aridi habet,
contraque nigri tota humida est, ideo album....” I hope the reader
will forgive me for entering so deeply into criticism; but if Pliny’s
valuable work is ever to become intelligible, occasional contributions
of this kind must not be despised.
Of the process employed in tinning in ancient times, we have no
account; but the words of Pliny _incoquere_ and _incoctilia_ seem
almost to denote that it was performed, as in tinning our iron wares,
by immersing the vessels in melted tin. It appears also to have
been done at an early period in a very perfect manner, both because
the tinned articles, as Pliny says, could scarcely be distinguished
from silver, and because the tinning, as he adds, with an expression
of wonder, did not increase the weight of the vessels. The metal,
therefore, was applied so thin that it could make no perceptible
addition to the weight. This is the case still, when the work has
been skilfully executed; and it affords a remarkable proof of the
astonishing divisibility of metal. Dr. Watson caused a vessel, the
surface of which contained 254 square inches, and which weighed
twenty-six ounces, to be tinned, and found that the weight was
increased only half an ounce; consequently half an ounce of tin was
spread over 254 square inches.
But, notwithstanding all this dexterity, which must be allowed to
the Romans, they appear to have employed tinning at any rate for
kitchen utensils and household furniture very seldom. It is scarcely
ever mentioned, and never where one might expect it, that is to say,
in works on cookery and domestic œconomy, where the authors give
directions for preparing and preserving salt provisions. When they
speak of the choice of vessels, they merely say that new earthen ones
should be employed. Some of the physicians only have had the foresight
to recommend tinned vessels. It does not appear indeed that the Romans,
though copper vessels were in general use among them, employed any
precautions to prevent them from being injurious to the health. Pliny
only says that a coating of _stannum_ improved the taste of food, and
guarded against verdigris. The former part is to be thus understood;
that the bad taste occasioned by copper was prevented; but he does not
say that the health was secured by it. The term also _incoctilia_,
usual in the time of Pliny, is found in his works alone. It is likewise
remarkable, that among the numerous vessels found at Herculaneum, as
I have already remarked, the greater part of them were of copper or
_stannum_, few of which were silvered, and none tinned. Had tinning
been then as much used as at present, some tinned vessels must have
been found.
I shall further remark, that Pliny ascribes the invention of tinning to
the Gauls; and that he extols in particular the work of the Bituriges,
the old inhabitants of the province of Berry, and those articles made
at Alexia or Alegia, which is considered to have been Alise in Auxois;
that he speaks of tinning copper and not iron, and that according to
his account not only tin was used for that purpose, but also _stannum_.
By the passages already quoted, it is proved that in the time of Homer
_cassiteron_ was employed for ornamenting shields and certain kinds of
dresses; but the further illustration of them I shall leave to others.
The shields perhaps were inlaid with tin; and it is not improbable that
threads were then made of this metal, and used for embroidering. That
this art was at that period known may be readily believed, since the
women of Lapland embroider their dresses, and particularly their fur
cloaks, in so delicate and ingenious a manner, with tin threads drawn
out by themselves, as to excite astonishment[531].
What Pliny says is true, that lead cannot be soldered without tin, or
tin without lead. For this operation a mixture of both metals, which
fuses more readily than each of them singly, is employed. Instead
of oil, mentioned by Pliny, workmen use at present in this process
colophonium, or some other resin.
That vessels were made of cast tin at an early period is highly
probable; but I do not remember to have seen any of them in collections
of antiquities. I am acquainted only with two instances of their being
found, both of which occurred in England. In the beginning of the last
century some pieces of tin were discovered in Yorkshire, together with
other Roman antiquities[532]; and in 1756 some tin vessels of Roman
workmanship with Roman inscriptions were dug up in Cornwall[533].
I shall pass over the history of the tin trade of the Phœnicians, the
Greeks, the Gauls and the Romans, respecting which only scanty and
doubtful information is to be found in the works of the ancients, but
in those of the moderns a greater number of hypotheses. The situation
even of the Cassiterides islands cannot with certainty be determined,
though it is supposed in general, and not without probability, that
they were the Scilly islands, which lie at the distance of about thirty
miles from the most western part of the English coast; that is, the
extremity of Cornwall, or, as it is called, the Land’s End. At the same
time we must adopt the opinion of Ortelius, that under that appellation
were included the coasts of Cornwall and Devonshire[534]. To those
who are on the Scilly islands, Cornwall, as Borlase remarks, appears
to be an island; and as it is impossible that the Scilly islands,
which were called also _Silures_, could furnish tin sufficient for the
ancient trade, especially as few and very small traces of old works
are observed in them, it is more probable that the greater part of
the metal was obtained from Cornwall. That the Phœnicians themselves
worked mines there, cannot be proved; it is rather to be supposed that
they procured the metal from the inhabitants by barter; but, on the
other hand, there is reason to believe, from various antiquities, that
the Romans dug up the ore themselves from the mine, and had works for
extracting the metal.
The island Ictis of Diodorus Siculus, to which the ancient Britons
carried tin, and from which it was conveyed by the Gallic merchants,
is generally considered as the Isle of Wight; but Borlase remarks
very properly[535], that Ictis, according to the account of the
ancients, must have been much nearer to the coast of Cornwall. He
conjectures therefore, and with great probability, that this word was
the general appellation of a peninsula, or bay, or a place of depôt for
merchandise[536]. If the Mictis of Timæus and the Vectis of Pliny are
not this island Ictis, it will be difficult to find them. It is very
singular, that Dionysius, a later writer, and his follower Priscian,
and Avienus, call the _Cassiterides_ islands the _Hesperides_[537].
That the Drangians had tin mines appears to me highly improbable;
Strabo is the only writer who says so, in a few words; and nothing of
the kind is to be found in any other author. If Drangiana be considered
as a part of Persia, to which that district belongs at present, it is
stated by all modern travellers that tin is not to be found anywhere in
the Persian empire[538]. If we reckon it a part of India, Pliny asserts
that no tin-works were then known in that country. In his time, this
metal was sent thither as an article of commerce, and was purchased
with precious stones and pearls. This last circumstance has by some
been considered as a proof of the high price of the metal at that
period; but he says nothing further than that tin was among the imports
of India at that time, and that jewels and pearls formed a part of the
exports. It may be said that the inhabitants of the Spanish colonies
in America gave their silver for our linen, but we cannot thence prove
that it bears a high price.
That the word _stannum_, in the time of Pliny, did not signify tin but
a compounded metal, is as certain as that in later times it became the
common name of tin. Hence arises the question, Since what time has our
tin been known under the appellation of _stannum_?
This question, as far as I know, has never yet been examined; and this,
I hope, will be a sufficient excuse if I should not be able to give an
answer completely satisfactory. The first author in whom I find the
Greek word _cassiteros_ translated by _stannum_ is Avienus, in the free
translation of Dionysius; who, as proved by Wernsdorf, lived about the
middle of the fourth century. The next who translates the Greek word in
the same manner, is Priscian; who, according to the grounds alleged by
Wernsdorf, must have lived in the beginning of the sixth century.
From what I already know, I suspect that the long and improper name
_plumbum candidum_ began in the fourth century to be exchanged
for _stannum_; and it is probable that, at that time, tin was so
abundant that it banished the old _stannum_, to which it might have
a resemblance. In later centuries, then, _stannum_ always signified
tin; and in the middle ages various words were arbitrarily formed from
it which do not occur in the Latin authors. The _stannea tecta_, or
roof of the church at Agen, on the Garonne, in Guienne, described by
the ecclesiastical poet Fortunatus[539], about the end of the sixth
century, consisted undoubtedly of tinned plates of copper. _Stagnare_
occurs often for tinning, as _stagnator_ does for a tin-founder. In
the thirteenth century, Henry III. of England gave as a present a
_stagnarium_ or a _stannaria_, a tin mine or tin work, or as others
say, _fodina stanni_. In the fourteenth century, there was in England,
under Edward III., a _stannaria curia_; and in the same century,
besides various other ornaments, _lunulæ stanneatæ_ were forbidden to
the clergy. In a catalogue of the year 1379, the following articles
occur: “tria parva stanna modici valoris ... item unum stannum parvum
... item duo magna stanna[540].”
In regard to the tin trade of the Spaniards, I can unfortunately say
nothing: the tin-works in Spain, we are told, were abandoned under the
government of the Moors. England, as is generally asserted, enjoyed an
exclusive trade in this metal till the thirteenth century, when the
tin mines were discovered and worked in Bohemia. But the exact time
when this took place I am not able to determine. The Bohemian works, in
all probability, are older than the Saxon; but it is still more certain
that the account given by Hagec, that they were known so early as the
year 798, is entirely void of foundation[541].
When the English writers[542] treat on the history of this metal, they
seldom fail to repeat what has been said on the subject by Matthew
Paris. This Benedictine monk, who was by birth an Englishman, and
died in 1259, relates, in his History of England, that a Cornish-man
having fled to Germany, on account of a murder, first discovered tin
there in the year 1241. He adds, that the Germans soon after furnished
this metal at so cheap a rate, that they could sell it in England,
on which the price there fell, very much to the loss of Richard Earl
of Cornwall, so well known by his having been elected king of the
Romans[543]. Since Matthew relates this as an event which took place
in his time, it would perhaps be improper to doubt it; but it still
appears strange that no mention is to be found of this circumstance in
the Bohemian or German Annals. Gmelin also must not have met with any
account of it, else he would have announced it. Peithner likewise is
silent respecting it: on the contrary, he says that the tin mines in
the neighbourhood of the town of Grauppen were discovered as early as
the year 1146, by a peasant named Wnadec, belonging to the village of
Chodicze. Of the antiquity of the Saxon mines I can give no account:
had any information on that subject existed, it would certainly have
been noticed by Gmelin.
Brusch, who was murdered by two noblemen in 1559, seems to place
the discovery of the tin mines at Schlackenwalde, which he says
are younger than those of Schönfeld, in the thirteenth or twelfth
century[544]. Albertus Magnus, who died in 1280, says that in his time
a great deal of tin was dug up in various parts of Germany. At present
the principal tin works are at Geyer, Ehrenfriedersdorf and Altenberg.
The art of tinning plate-iron was invented either in Bohemia or
Germany, and introduced at a later period into England, France, and
other countries. But as the whole history of the German mines is
very defective and uncertain, the period when this useful and highly
profitable branch of business was begun is not known. Yarranton, an
English writer, of whom I shall speak more hereafter, relates that
the first tinning of this kind was made in Bohemia; that a Catholic
clergyman, who embraced the Lutheran religion, brought the art, about
the year 1620, to Saxony, and that since that time all Europe has been
furnished with tin-plate from Germany.
This much, however, is certain, that the tinning of iron is more
modern than the tinning of copper. The first articles made by the
bottle-makers were flasks of copper tinned, which in old times were
used in war and on journeys, like the _stagnone_, still employed in
Spain and Portugal, in which all kinds of distilled waters are sent
from Malta[545].
Among the English, who formerly had a monopoly of the tin trade, and
who still possess the best and richest tin mines, the introduction of
this art of employing their native production did not at first succeed;
and this circumstance afforded Becher a subject for raillery[546]. But
about the year 1670, a company sent to Saxony, at their expense, an
ingenious man named Andrew Yarranton, in order to learn the process of
tinning. Having acquired there the necessary knowledge, he returned to
England with some German workmen, and manufactured tin-plate, which
met with general approbation. Before the company, however, could carry
on business on an extensive scale, a man of some distinction, having
made himself acquainted with Yarranton’s process, obtained a patent
for this art; and the first undertakers were obliged to give up their
enterprise, which had cost them a great deal of money, and yet no use
was made of the patent which had been obtained[547].
About the year 1720, which, on account of the many new schemes and
the deceptive trade carried on in consequence of them, will ever be
memorable in the history of English folly, among the many _bubbles_, as
they were then called, was an establishment for making tin-plate; and
this was one of the few speculations of that period which were attended
with advantage. The first manufactory of this kind was established in
Monmouthshire, perhaps at the village of Pontypool, where tin-plate was
at any rate made so early as 1730[548]. In France, the first experiment
to introduce this branch of manufacture was made under Colbert, who
procured workmen, some of whom were established at Chenesey, in
Franche-Comté, and others at Beaumont-la-Ferriere in the Nivernois.
But the want of skill and proper support rendered this expensive
undertaking fruitless. Some manufactories, however, were brought to be
productive in the last century; the oldest of which was established at
Mansvaux in Alsace, in the year 1726. This was followed, in 1733, by
another at Bain in Lorraine, which obtained its privilege from Duke
Francis III., and this was confirmed by Stanislaus in 1745[549].
That tin, in modern times, has been brought from the East Indies to
Europe is well-known; but I have never been so fortunate as to discover
when this trade began. It is, however, known, that at the commencement
of the sixteenth century a good deal of information had been obtained
in Europe in regard to East Indian tin. Louis Barthema, who was
then in India, speaks of Malacca tin[550], as does also F. Mendez
Pinto, who was there in 1537, and Odoard Barbosa mentions that which
was carried from Caranguor to Malacca. Barbosa wrote in 1516[551].
Munster, Mercator, and other old geographers relate, that before the
establishment of the Portuguese dominion in India, large tin coins were
in circulation in the island of Sumatra.
The greater part of the East-Indian tin comes from Siam, Malacca,
and Banca. In the last-mentioned place, which is an island near the
south-east coast of Sumatra, the mines are said to have been discovered
in 1711. In 1776 there were ten pits, which were worked by Chinese, on
account of the king of Palimbang. One hundred and twenty-five pounds
cost him only five rix dollars; and for this quantity he received from
the Dutch East-India company, to whose government he was subject, from
thirteen to fifteen dollars. The greater part went to China, or was
used in India; but in the year 1778 the company sent 700,000 pounds to
Europe, which was sold at the rate of a hundred pounds for forty-two
florins. Malacca furnishes yearly about three or four hundred thousand
pounds; but the principal part of it remains in India. In the year 1778
the company sold 100,000 pounds in Amsterdam. A great deal of tin is
sold also in its factory at Siam. All the tin sold by it at Amsterdam
between the years 1775 and 1779 amounted to 2,421,597 pounds.
[Tin occurs native in two forms, as peroxide and as sulphuret of tin
and copper. The last is rare; the former constitutes the great source
of tin, and in its native state mixed with arsenic, copper, zinc and
tungsten, is called tin-stone; but when occurring in rounded masses,
grains, or sand in alluvial soil, is called stream-tin. The metal
reduced from the tin-stone forms block-tin; whilst that from the
stream-tin, and which is the purest, is called grain-tin.
The annual produce of the tin mines and works of Cornwall is
estimated at 4000 tons, worth from £65 to £80 a ton. About 30,000
cwt. of unwrought tin are annually exported from Britain, chiefly
to France, Italy and Russia; which is, exclusive of tin and pewter
wares and tin-plates, in declared value nearly £400,000, sent to the
United States, Italy, Germany, France, the colonies, &c. Moreover,
from 10,000 to 30,000 cwt. of Banca and Malay tin are imported for
re-exportation to the continent and the United States.
An important enamel has lately been patented for lining the interior of
cast iron vessels and utensils used in cooking, chemical operations,
&c., which will probably replace tinned articles in a great degree.
To apply the process, the vessels are cleansed with weak sulphuric
acid, then washed and dipped into a thin paste made with quartz first
melted with borax, felspar and clay free from iron, then reduced to an
impalpable powder, and sufficient water added to form thinnish paste.
The vessels are then powdered inside with a linen bag, containing a
very finely powdered mixture of felspar, carbonate of soda, borax, and
a little oxide of tin. The articles are then dried and heated in an
enamelling furnace. The coating is very white, bears the action of fire
without cracking, and completely resists acid or alkaline solutions.]