Forty Centuries of Ink / Or, A chronological narrative concerning ink and its backgrounds, introducing incidental observations and deductions, parallels of time and color phenomena, bibliography, chemistry, poetical effusions, citations, anecdotes and curiosa together with some evidence respecting the evanescent character of most inks of to-day and an epitome of chemico-legal ink.

by David Nunes Carvalho

The illustrative history of the ancient Egyptians does not point to a time before the reed was used as a pen. The various sculptures, carvings, pottery and paintings, exhibit the scribes at work in their avocations, recording details about the hands and ears of slaughtered enemies, the numbers of captives, the baskets of wheat, the numerous animals, the tribute, the treaties and the public records. These ancient scribes employed a cylindrical box for ink, with writing tablets, which were square sections of wood with lateral grooves to hold the small reeds for writing.

During the time Joseph was Viceroy of Egypt under Sethosis I, the first of the Pharaohs, B. C. 1717, he employed a small army of clerks and storekeepers throughout Egypt in his extensive grain operations. The scribes whose duties pertained to making records respecting this business, used both red and black inks, contained in different receptacles in a desk, which, when not in use, was placed in a box or trunk, with leather handles at the sides, and in this way was carried from place to place. As the scribe had two colors of ink, he needed two pens (reeds) and we see him on the monuments of Thebes, busy with one pen at work, and the other placed in that most ancient pen-rack, behind the ear. Such, says Mr. Knight, is presented in a painting at Beni Hassan.

The Historical Society of New York possesses a small bundle of these pens, with the stains of the ink yet upon them, besides a bronze knife used for making such pens (reeds), and which are alleged to belong to a period not far removed from Joseph's time. The other history of ink, long preceding the departure of Israel from Egypt, and with few exceptions until after the middle ages, can only be considered, as it is intimately bound up in the chronology and story of handwriting and writing materials. Even then it must not be supposed that the history of ink is authentic and continuous from the moment handwriting was applied to the recording of events; for the earliest records are lost to us in almost every instance. We are therefore dependent upon later writers, who made their records in the inks of their own time, and who could refer to those preceding them only by the aid of legends and traditions.

There is no independent data indicating any variation whatever in the methods of the admixture of black or colored inks, which differentiates them from those used in the earliest times of the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews or Chinese. On the contrary if we exclude "Indian" and one of the red inks, for a period of fourteen hundred years we find their number diminishing until the first centuries of the Christian era. Exaggerated tradition has described inks as well as other things and imagination is not lacking. Some of these legends, in later years put in writing, compel us to depend on translations of obscure and obsolete tongues, while the majority of them are mingled with the errors and superstitious of the time in which they were transcribed.

The value of such accounts depends upon a variety of circumstances and we must proceed with the utmost caution and discrimination in examining and weighing the authenticity of these sources of information.

If we reason that the art of handwriting did not become known to all the ancient nations at once, but was gradually imparted by one to another, it follows that records supposed to be contemporaneous, were made in some countries at a much earlier period than in others. It must also be observed that the Asiatic nations and the Egyptians practiced the art of writing many centuries before it was introduced into Europe. Hence we are able to estimate with some degree of certainty that ink-written accounts of some Asiatic nations were made while Europe was in this respect buried in utter darkness.

An interesting story which bears on this statement is told by Kennett, in his "Antiquities of Rome," London, 1743, as to the discovery of ancient MSS., five hundred and twenty years before the Christian era, of what even then must have been remarkable:

"A strange old woman came once to Tarquinius Superbus with nine books, which, she said, were the oracles of the Sybils, and proffered to sell them. But the king making some scruple about the price, she went away and burnt three of them; and returning with the six, asked the same sum as before. Tarquin only laughed at the humour; upon which the old woman left him once more; and after she had burnt three others, came again with them that were left, but still kept to her old terms. The king now began to wonder at her obstinacy, and thinking there might be something more than ordinary in the business, sent for the augars (soothsayers) to consult what was to be done. They, when their divinations were performed, soon acquainted him what a piece of impiety he had been guilty of, by refusing a treasure sent to him from heaven, and commanded him to give whatever she demanded for the books that remained. The woman received her money, and delivered the writings; and only, charging them by all means to keep them sacred, immediately vanished. Two of the nobility were presently after chosen to be the keepers of these oracles, which were laid up with all imaginable care in the Capitol, in a chest under ground. They could not be consulted without a special order of the Senate, which was never granted, unless upon the receiving of some notable defeat; upon the rising of any considerable mutiny, or sedition in the State; or upon some other extraordinary occasion; several of which we meet with in Livy."

Some of the ancient historians even sought to be misleading respecting the events not only of their own times, but of epochs which preceded them. Richardson, in his "Dissertation on Ancient History and Mythology," published in 1778, remarks:

"The information received hitherto has been almost entirely derived through the medium of the Grecian writers; whose elegance of taste, harmony of language, and fine arrangement of ideas, have captivated the imagination, misled the judgment, and stamped with the dignified title of history, the amusing excursions of fanciful romance. Too proud to consider surrounding nations, (if the Eyptians may be excepted) in any light but that of barbarians; they despised their records, they altered their language, and framed too often their details, more to the prejudices of their fellow citizens, than to the standard of truth or probability. We have names of Persian kings, which a Persian could not pronounce; we have facts related they apparently never knew; and we have customs ascribed to them, which contradict every distinguishing characteristic of an Eastern people. The story of Lysimachus and one Greek historian may indeed, with justice, be applied to many others. This prince, in the partition of Alexander's empire, became King of Thrace: he had been one of the most active of that conqueror's commanders; and was present at every event which deserved the attention of history. A Grecian had written an account of the Persian conquest; and be wished to read it before the king. The monarch listened with equal attention and wonder: 'All this is very fine,' says he, when the historian had finished, 'but where was I when those things were performed?' "