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

"Upon the question of the permanency of nut-gall and iron inks, the answers were more varied; one answering no, and four answering directly yes, the remaining answers being in brief that such inks were permanent if properly made.

"To the question, 'Do you consider carbon ink the only permanent ink?' the answers were varied and contradictory. Most of the manufacturers said a carbon ink could not be permanent, because carbon was insoluble; and some said that no chemical union could exist between carbon and the other ingredients in ink. Others claimed that carbon was the one permanent color, and cited the old Indian and Chinese inks which have stood for centuries as illustrations of its permanency. These statements were so widely different that I pursued the inquiry further, and found it was conceded that, if a process could be discovered by which carbon could be dissolved and made to retain its color, no known substance would make so permanent an ink; but that there was no such process, and in the inks now made the carbon was simply held in suspension in the ink without any chemical union; but I found also that improvement has been made, and that it is possible to combine the carbon with chemicals which will cause the carbon to embody itself. More than ordinary care should, however, be exercised in the purchase of carbon inks, for the lack of chemical union would cause a tendency to precipitate the carbon if the ink were improperly made.

"The replies to the inquiry, 'Do you advise generally against the inks known as writing fluids, when permanency is the first requisition?' were in a way the most unsatisfactory, and savored somewhat of advertising. One manufacturer made no fluid, and had no opinion to express. Most of the others made fluids. Nine advised generally against their use; four recommended them in preference to ink; and the others either advised generally against them, but recommended their own, or qualified the answer in such a way as to throw doubt on them.

"The argument in their favor seems to be that their fluidity makes them permeate the paper, and, in the change of color which usually takes place after using, a dyeing of the paper results. The objections are, that to obtain the fluidity body must be sacrificed, and there is not enough substance deposited upon the paper. The objections made by two manufacturers of fluids I give in their own words.

" 'We advise generally against the inks known simply as writing fluids—those not intended to yield a letter-press copy—because they are universally made, first, with as little solid matter as possible,—i. e. weak; second, with an excess of iron beyond that required to combine with the tannin, so as to develop all the color possible and flow with the greatest freedom. The combined writing and copying fluids, and the copying fluids on the other hand if properly made, may be justly recommended where permanency is the first requisition, particularly the older ones, which should be the most durable of all nut-gall and iron inks, because in them particularly concentration is aimed at, and the iron need not necessarily, and should not, be in excess of that required to combine with the tannin present. A steel pen during use injures, and often greatly, the durability of a writing ink by giving up iron to it.

" 'For your purpose, where extreme permanency is the first requisition, I should not advise the use of an ordinary writing fluid. Many manufacturers cannot obtain sufficient fluidity in their writing fluids without making their inks very dilute, and observing a particular method of manufacture which, although providing more attained color for a time, sacrifices the permanent quality of their color in a great measure. I should advise the use of an ink decidedly stronger.'

"The addition of water was almost universally condemned, for reasons stated later. As proof that this was not for the mercenary purpose of indirectly advising the use of more ink, some of the manufacturers said the ink should be kept in small- mouthed ink-stands, and when not in use should be as tightly sealed as possible, to prevent evaporation.

"In reply to the inquiry as to whether chemicals left in the paper ever obliterated the ink, several of the manufacturers said they knew of such cases, and all were agreed that, if the chlorides used for bleaching the paper were not washed out, they would dangerously affect any ink. The practice of mixing inks was universally condemned.

"Permanency against the action of time is the quality sought for in this investigation, and it is claimed that better evidence as to that quality is furnished by the test of time than by any other; and manufacturers have shown or referred to specimens of writing made with their ink many years ago, as proof of its merit in this particular. If there was any surety that the standard of quality was always kept up in all of the oldest inks on the market, it would be safe to accept that test, but this may not be a fact; and, as has been stated, some of the recording officers believe that it is not.

Moreover, if only the old inks were to be accepted, it would be against the spirit of the age, which is to adopt the improvements which science makes possible; and manufacturers who at great cost of time and money have made improvements, would be deprived of the compensation which they deserve. The old inks were as a rule heavy, and had a tendency to settle; and the endeavor on the part of some manufacturers has been to preserve the permanency, and at the same time produce thinner inks which would be more agreeable to use.