III king of England, when foreign articles imported into the kingdom began to be taxed, it was enacted, that no person whose yearly income did not amount to a hundred pounds should wear furs, under the penalty of losing them. * In Germany, in 1497, citizens who did not belong to the nobility or equestrian order were forbidden to wear lining of sable or ermine. † According to an ordinance of 1530, common citizens, tradesmen, and shop-keepers were to wear no trimmed clothes, nor to use martin or other costly lining, and the rich were to wear lining made only of lamb-skins or those of the cow, fox, weasel, and the like. Merchants and tradespeople were not to wear martin, sable, or ermine, and at most weasel-skins; and their wives were to wear the fur only of the squirrel. Counts and lords were allowed all kinds of lining, sable and such like expensive kinds excepted. The latter permission was repeated, word for word, in the year 1548. § sed veste nigri coloris, vel camelini seu persei. Gottfr. de Bello loco, cap. 8, Joinville Hist. de St. Louis, p. 118: C'est assavoir, que onques puis en ses habitz ne voulut porter ne menuver, ne gris, ne escarlate, ne estriesz, ne eperons dorez. Histoire de St. Louis, Paris 1688, p. 460. 4to. # Barrington's Observations on the more ancient statutes. The third edit. Lond. 1769, 4to. p. 216. + Reichsabschied zu Lindau, 1497, § 11. in Samlung der Reichsabschiede. Franck fort 1747, fol. ii. p. 31. Reformation guter Polizey zu Augsburg, 1530, § xi. 1, xii. 2, xiv. 4, in the same, p. 337, 338. § Ibid. 1548, § xiii. 3, in the same, p. 594. When one considers how much the use of fur dresses was spread all over Europe, it must excite astonishment that they were not introduced at the court of Byzantium. No traces of them are to be found in any of the Byzantine historians; not even in that work in which the emperor Constantine describes the whole ceremonial of his court, and in which dresses of various kinds are named, as Reiske has already remarked.* Furs are no where represented on Grecian statues, in paintings, or other works of art; and it is seen by the passages above quoted, that in the magnificence which the European princes displayed in the time of the crusades at the court of Constantinople, nothing attracted so much attention as the different kinds of fur dresses. This seems the more astonishing, as a great trade was carried on, at that time, between Constantinople and those countries from which these wares were sent to Europe. Over one of the gates of Milan is an image cut out in stone, of the twelfth century, representing an emperor, whose mantle is ornamented with small triangular patches of fur. Flamma believed that this carving was intended to represent one Giulini justly re of the Greek emperors; but marks, in opposition to this opinion, that furs never occur in any of the Greek sculpture. Be * Constantini libri de Ceremoniis aulæ Byzantinæ. Lipsia 1754, fol. ii. comment. p. 144. sides, that image was evidently formed to ridicule the emperor, as is proved by the hideous monster seated close to him. But at that time the Milanese certainly had no cause to offend the Greek emperor, with whom they were in alliance; and Giulini has proved, in a very satisfactory manner, that the Milanese erected this image to ridicule the emperor Frederick I, who was their bitterest enemy. On another image at Milan cut out in stone, of the thirteenth century, which represents the emperor of Germany on his throne, surrounded by the electors, the latter have small mantles which are ornamented with triangular patches of fur of the same kind.† STEEL. STEEL is the same metal as iron, but it has some remarkable properties by which it is distinguished from common iron. It possesses such a superior degree of hardness, that it is capable of filing the latter; it strikes fire with vitreous stones, and scratches the hardest glass; it is heavier, has a stronger sound, exhibits on the fracture a finer * Memorie della citta di Milano, raccolte dal conte Georg. Giulini. In Milano, 4to. vi. p. 407. For this information I am indebted to my friend professor Fiorillo. + Ibid. P. viii. p. 443. grain, assumes a bright white splendour when polished, is susceptible of greater elasticity; becomes more slowly magnetic, but retains that power longer; does not so easily acquire rust; when ignited gives fewer sparks: in the fire it assumes various strong tints, and when heated is speedily cooled in cold water, but is then harder, more brittle, and less pliable. In consequence of these qualities, it is fit for many uses to which common iron either cannot be applied, or is less proper. In regard, however, to what essentially renders iron steel, we are altogether ignorant. Those who, without prejudice, can acknowledge the truth, must say that we do not know, with certainty, whether the conversion into steel is effected by the iron being condensed, or by the loss or addition of a component part, or whether this part be carbon, caloric, manganese, molybdæna, or something else. Many opinions have been formed on this subject, and one new one gives place to another. It is nevertheless certain, that the invention of steel is of very great antiquity. In the Old Testament, however, the mention of it is very doubtful, according to professor Tychsen, whose remarks on this subject I subjoin, with his permission, in a note below; but it appears that it was used so * * In regard to the hardening of iron and the quenching of it in water, nothing, as far as I know, occurs in the Hebrew text of the Scriptures. The passages where it seems to be mentioned are, Isaiah, chap. xliv. ver. 12. The smith bends the iron, works it in a fire of early as the time of Homer, and that the Greeks gave to it different names, one of the most common of which was stomoma, though it seems certain that this word did not so much denote steel itself as the steeled part of an instrument, or the coals, and forms it with the hammer; he labours on it with a strong arm, &c. according to the translation of Michaelis. It may indeed be translated otherwise, but it certainly alludes to the formation of an image of metal. The words, chap. liv. ver. 16, are still more general. Iron, barzel, often occurs, and in some passages indeed steel may be understood under this name. For example, in Ezekiel, chap. xxvii. ver. 19, ferrum fabrefactum, or, according to Michaelis and others, sabre blades from Usal (Sanaa in Yemen). A pretty clear indication of steel is given in Jeremiah, chap. xv. ver. 12: Iron from the North, which is described there as the hardest. To the north of Judæa was situated Chalybia, the ancient country of steel. It appears that the Hebrews had no particular name for steel, which they perhaps comprehended under the term barzel, or distinguished it only by the epithet Northern, especially as the later Jews have for it no other name than NODS, istoma, which however is nothing else than the Greek στομωμα, and signifies rather steeling or hardening. In Buxtorf's Chaldaic Lexicon the word *, carcoma, is explained by chalyls, but this is merely a mistake. The word in all the places there quoted means as, χαλκος, and is itself the Greek χαλκωμα, with the usual conversion of the / into r. Chalamisch is certainly a hard kind of stone; granite or porphyry, according to Michaelis, who treats expressly of it in Supplem, ad Lex. Hebr. N. 740. [The latter refers to the following passage in Hieron. Magii Miscellanea, lib. ii. cap. 8, ed. Venet. 1564, 8vo. p. 88, b. Hebreis Toμwμa dicitur winn, chalamisk, ut fuit pridem adnotatum a Francisco Forrerio, Ulyssoponensi theologo, in Commentariis in Jesaiam, cap. 50, cujus vocis etymon esse dicit a verbo whn, chalasc, inserta litera mem, id est, domuit cum omnia domet sua duritie. Quamquam video Hebræos quadratum nomen esse dixisse, cujus radix sit won chalamasc.] |