A History of Inventions, Discoveries, and Origins, Volume II (of 2). Johann Beckmann

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ mentioned only among articles of silver plate. I am acquainted with no certain trace of glass mirrors from the time of Pliny to the thirteenth century; but after that period, at which they are spoken of in the clearest manner, we find them often mentioned in every century; and mirrors of metal at length entirely disappear.

      How the Sidonian mirrors were made, is not known; but if I may be allowed a conjecture, I am of opinion that they consisted of dark-coloured glass, which had a resemblance to the obsidian stone. Such is the usual progress of inventions. At those periods one had no other representation of glass mirrors than that afforded by natural glass or vitreous stones. When artists wished to make mirrors of glass, they would try to imitate the latter. After the invention of printing, people endeavoured to render printed books as like as possible to manuscripts; because they imagined that this invention was to be approved only so far as it enabled them to imitate these, without observing that it could far excel the art of writing. But the Sidonian glass mirrors were so much surpassed by the silver or brass ones, which perhaps were invented about the same time, that on this account they were never brought into use. Glass mirrors, perhaps, would have been invented sooner, had mankind employed at an earlier period glass-windows, which often, when they are shut on the outside so that no light can pass through them, reflect images in a much better manner than the best mirrors of metal. This observation, which may be made daily, would then, in all probability, have been sooner turned to advantage.

      No one has employed a greater profusion of words to maintain an opinion opposite to mine, than Abat; but when his proofs are divested of their ornaments, they appear so weak that one has very little inclination to agree with him. “The observation,” says he, “that a plate of glass is the best mirror, when all other rays of light, except those reflected back from the glass, are prevented, by a metallic covering placed behind it, from falling on the eye, is so easy, that it must have been made immediately after the invention of glass.” Who does not think here of Columbus and his egg? Instances occur in history of many having approached so near an invention, that we are astonished how they could have missed it; so that we may exclaim with a certain emperor, “Taurum toties non ferire difficile est175.” “The Sidonian invention,” continues he, “would not have been worth mentioning, had it not produced better mirrors than those which the ancients had before of the obsidian stone. But these even are mentioned only once, in so short and abrupt a manner, and as it were out of ridicule, that one may easily perceive they were not much esteemed.” “If the Sidonians,” adds he, “were not the inventors, let some other inventor be mentioned;” and he assures us that he had sought information on this subject, in Neri, Kunkel, and Merret, but without success. That I believe; but Abat does not remark that by the same manner of reasoning we may ascribe to the Sidonians the invention of watches, and many other articles, the inventors of which are not to be found in books where they ought as much to be expected as the inventor of glass in Neri. The grounds on which many old commentators of the Bible, Nicholas de Lyra and others, have supposed that glass mirrors were known so early as the time of Moses, are still weaker. If quoting the names of writers who entertain a like opinion be of any weight, I could produce a much greater number of learned men, who, after an express examination of the question, deny altogether that glass mirrors were used by the ancients.

      Dr. Watson176 also has endeavoured to support the opinion of Abat, but with less confidence and with more critical acumen. His grounds, I think, I have weakened already; but one observation here deserves not to be overlooked, because it suggests an idea that may serve to illustrate a passage of Pliny, which, as I before remarked, has never yet been explained. “If we admit,” says he, “that Pliny was acquainted with glass mirrors, we may thus understand what he says respecting an invention, which was then new, of applying gold behind a mirror.” Instead of an amalgam of tin, some one had proposed to cover the back of the mirror with an amalgam of gold, with which the ancients were certainly acquainted, and which they employed in gilding177. He mentions, also, on this occasion, that a thought had once occurred to Buffon, that an amalgam of gold might be much better for mirrors than that used at present178. This conjecture appears, at any rate, to be ingenious; but when I read the passage again, without prejudice, I can hardly believe that Pliny alludes to a plate of glass in a place where he speaks only of metallic mirrors; and the overlaying with amalgam requires too much art to allow me to ascribe it to such a period without sufficient proof. I consider it more probable that some person had tried, by means of a polished plate of gold, to collect the rays of light, and to throw them either on the mirror or the object, in order to render the image brighter.

      Professor Heeren showed me a passage in the Ecloga of Stobæus, which, on the first view, seems to allude to a glass mirror179. It is there said, Philolaus the Pythagorean believed that the sun was a vitreous body, which only received the rays of the æthereal fire and reflected them to us like a mirror. When we compare, however, the words of Stobæus with those by which Plutarch180, Achilles Tatius181, Eusebius182, and others, express the same thing, that meaning cannot be drawn from them. It appears, at first, as if Philolaus had considered the sun to be transparent, and supposed that the rays passed through it, and came condensed to our earth, in the same manner as they are brought to a focus by a glass globe. Some commentators have explained the passage in this manner; and on account of the affinity of the Greek words have thought also of a funnel. In that case, however, the comparison of the sun with a mirror would not have been just; and if it be admitted that Philolaus considered the sun as a bright body endowed with the property of reflection, what he says of rays passing or transmitted through it, and of the pores of the sun’s body, will become unintelligible. But even if we adopt the last explanation, that Philolaus imagined the sun to be a mirror, it does not follow that he had any idea of a glass one183; and besides, he only speaks of a body capable of reflecting a strong light; and that glass, under certain circumstances, is fit for that purpose, may have been remarked as soon as it was invented, though men might not find out the art of forming it into proper mirrors by placing some opake substance behind it184. Empedocles also said, that the sun was a mirror, and that the light received by our earth was the reflection of the æthereal fire, which Eusebius compares to the reflection made by water185.

      In the problems ascribed to Alexander of Aphrodisias, glass mirrors, covered on the back with tin, are clearly mentioned; but this information does not lead us one step further in the history of the art; as it is proved that the above Alexander, who lived in the beginning of the third century, could not have written that work. The author, who must have been a physician, maintains the immortality of the soul, which Alexander of Aphrodisias, with Aristotle, denies. Some therefore have ascribed these problems to Alexander Trallianus, who practised physic in the middle of the sixth century; but this is only a conjecture which no one has as yet rendered probable, especially as there have been many physicians of the name of Alexander. The problem to which I allude is not to be found in every manuscript and edition; so that it is doubtful whether it may not be the production of a later author than that of the rest of the book, particularly as it is certain that many who had it in their possession added problems of various kinds according to their pleasure. However this may be, it is evident that the author of this problem was acquainted with mirrors covered at the back; and the expression which he uses does not merely imply that a leaf of tin was placed behind the glass plate, but that the tin in a liquid state was rubbed over it. The old French translator thinks that the author speaks of windows; but that opinion is undoubtedly false186.

      Of as little importance as the above passage of Alexander, is another of Isidore, often quoted in support of the antiquity of glass mirrors. On the first view it appears to be a testimony of great weight; but when closely examined it becomes reduced to very little. “Nothing,” СКАЧАТЬ