CLOCKS AND WATCHES.
A paper on this subject was read by Professor Hamberger, in the year 1758, before the Society of Göttingen; but as the publication of the Transactions of the Society was interrupted, it was never printed. I however procured the manuscript from the professor’s son, Secretary Hamberger, at Gotha, and I here insert it, corrected in a few places, where necessary, but without any other alteration[1040].
“Weidler[1041] and Chambers[1042] are, doubtless, both mistaken when they place the invention of automatous clocks about the end of the fifteenth or beginning of the sixteenth century. The latter says, ‘It is certain that the art of constructing clocks, such as those now in use, was first invented or at least revived in Germany about two hundred years ago.’ The same account is given by Weidler, whom Chambers perhaps copied. But, however flattering this opinion may be to the ingenuity of the Germans, it is so apparently false in regard to the time, that one cannot assent to it; nor is it even probable in regard to the country, though it must be allowed that the art of clockmaking flourished very much in Germany, particularly at Nuremberg, about the beginning of the sixteenth century.
“As these two authors make the invention of clocks too modern, others, on the contrary, carry it back to a period too early. Without entering into any dissertation on the machines of Archimedes and Posidonius, which are said to have measured the hours of the day, I shall only observe that a certain writer pretends to have found mention made of a clock in the third century[1043]. In support of this assertion he refers to the Acts of St. Sebastian, the martyr, where Chromatius, the governor of Rome, says, when about to be cured by him, ‘I have a glass chamber in which the whole learning and science of the stars is constructed mechanically, in making which my father Tarquinius is known to have expended more than two hundred pounds of gold.’ St. Sebastian answers, ‘If you have made your choice to keep this whole, you destroy yourself.’ To which Chromatius replies, ‘How so? do we employ any sacrificial rights in the construction of an almanac or ephemeris, when merely the courses of the months and years are distinguished numerically for every hour; and the full and new moon is, by means of certain calculations, foreshown by a motion of the fingers[1044].’ This valuable machine, however, can hardly be called a clock; for if it had been an automaton, it would not have required to be moved with the fingers in order to show the time of full moon. If I understand the author’s words properly, it was not calculated to point out the hours; but to exhibit the sun’s course through the twelve signs of the zodiac, the motion of the rest of the planets, and their relative situation in every month, or at any period of the year. That the signs of the zodiac and the planets were represented on the machine, appears from what follows. St. Polycarp (the companion of St. Stephen) said, ‘There are the signs of the Lion, of Capricorn, Sagittarius, Scorpio and the Bull; in Aries the moon, in the Crab an hour, in Jupiter a star, in Mercury the tropics, in Venus Mars, and in all those monstrous demons is seen an art hostile to God[1045].’ But whatever this machine might have been, it was of no use to others, or to posterity: it was broken to pieces by these saints, so that, even allowing it to have been a clock, the knowledge of it must have been then lost.
“We find also, that Bernardus Saccus[1046] ascribes the invention of clocks to Boëthius, in the fifth century; but Bernardus seems to have forgotten what he quoted a little before from Cassiodorus[1047], respecting the clock of Boëthius, that it determined the hours guttis aquarum. It must, therefore, have been a water-clock, and not a clock moved by wheels and weights. The same Cassiodorus had provided his monks at the monastery of St. Andiol[1048], in Languedoc, with machines of the like kind: ‘I am known,’ says he, ‘to have constructed for you a time-piece which the light of the sun indexes; moreover another acting by water which marks the hours both day and night; as frequently upon some days there is no sunshine[1049].’ We are to understand also, as alluding to such clocks, what is said by the writer of the life of St. Leobin, bishop of Chartrain, about the year 556[1050], when he tells us, that to him (St. Leobin) was committed the duty of regulating the course of the hours and the vigils.
“I come now to the seventh century. In Du Cange’s Glossary we find the word Index, which is explained to be the index or hand of a clock, or the small bell which announces the hours by its sound; and this opinion is adopted by Muratori[1051]. Du Cange quotes in support of his assertion a monkish work called Regula Magistri, the author of which is not certainly known[1052], but which Mabillon[1053] asserts to have been written before the year 700. The passages to which he refers are, ‘Cum advenisse divinam horam percussus in oratorio index monstraverit.’ (When the index being struck in the oratory shall have shown that the hour for prayer had come.) ‘Cum sonuerit index;’ and ‘Cum ad opus divinum oratorii index sonaverit[1054].’ But Du Cange might have perceived, had he quoted the whole passage from the fifty-fifth chapter, that allusion is not here made to a clock; for it is said, not merely ‘cum sonuerit index,’ but ‘cum sonuerit index ab Abbate percussus.’ (When the index struck by the Abbot shall sound). It was a scilla or skella, perhaps only a board; and Martene[1055] seems to understand the word index in the true sense when he explains it the signal by which the brethren were called to divine service.
“That machine which was sent as a present to Charlemagne by the king of Persia, in the year 807, is supposed also to have been a clock like those used at present; and if we follow the Chronicon Turonense, one may easily fall into the same opinion: ‘The king of the Persians sent a time-piece in which the twelve hours were marked by the performance of a cymbal and of certain horsemen who at each hour went out through the windows, and on their return in the last hour of the day shut the windows as they marched back[1056].’ The description of it however, to be found in Annales Francorum, ascribed to Eginhard, shows clearly that it was far different from our clocks. The author says, ‘Likewise a time-piece wonderfully constructed of brass with mechanical art, in which the course of the twelve hours was turned towards a clepsydra, with as many brass balls which fell down at the completion of the hour, and by their fall sounded a bell placed under them[1057].’ It was evidently therefore a water-clock, furnished with some ingenious mechanism, but having nothing in common with our clocks.
“About the same period lived Pacificus, archdeacon of Verona, who is celebrated for having invented a clock[1058]. His epitaph, besides relating other services which he did, says,—
Horologium nocturnum nullus ante viderat.
En invenit argumentum et primus fundaverat;
Horologioque carmen spheræ cœli optimum,
Plura alia graviaque prudens invenit.
Scipio Maffei endeavours to prove, that we are here to understand a clock moved by wheels and weights; but, in my opinion, his arguments are extremely weak. ‘This horologium,’ says he, ‘the like of which had been never seen, and which was different from a sun-dial, because it showed the hours in the night-time, could not be a clepsydra or water-clock, for clocks of that kind were not only known to the ancients, but even to the inhabitants of Italy in latter times, so that it could have been nothing but a clock like ours.’ But even if we allow, with this learned man, that water-clocks were known in Italy at that period, it cannot be denied that they were scarce, and used only by few, as may be evidently gathered from what is said of these machines by Cassiodorus. The greater part of the people might have been unacquainted with them at the above-mentioned time; and there is no necessity for adhering so closely to the words of the epitaph, ‘nullus ante viderat,’ as Maffei has done. Besides, Maffei himself destroys the foundation on which he rests his opinion; for he relates that a horologium nocturnum was sent to Pepin, king of France, by pope Stephen II. This appears from the pope’s own letter; but Maffei is under a mistake respecting the name, for it was Paul, and not Stephen. The letter, which may be found in the Codex Carolinus[1059], is dated in the year 756. Maffei thinks that this machine was of a construction different from that of a water-clock; but if it pointed out the hours in the day-time, as well as in the night, according to his supposition, there is no reason, as Muratori observes, why it should have been called horologium nocturnum. In my opinion, we ought here to understand a clepsydra, or water-clock, such as that used by Cassiodorus for the like purpose, and which Hildemar recommended in the ninth century to the monks, who were obliged to observe the hours. Hildemar says, ‘He who wishes to do this properly, must have horologium aquæ[1060].’