[379] Archivische Nebenarbeiten und Nachrichten. Halle, 1785, 4to, ii. p. 3.
CORN-MILLS.
If under this name we comprehend all those machines, however rude, employed for pounding or grinding corn, these are of the highest antiquity. We read in the Scriptures, that Abraham caused cakes to be baked for his guests of the finest meal; and that the manna was ground like corn. The earliest instrument used for this purpose seems to have been the mortar; which was retained a long time even after the invention of mills properly so called, because these perhaps at first were not attended with much superior advantage[380]. It appears that in the course of time the mortar was made rigid and the pestle notched, at least at the bottom; by which means the grain was rather grated than pounded. A passage of Pliny[381], not yet sufficiently cleared up, makes this conjecture probable. When a handle was added to the top of the pestle, that it might be more easily driven round in a circle, the mortar was converted into a hand-mill. Such a mill was called mola trusatilis, versatilis, manuaria[382], and was very little different from those used at present by apothecaries, painters, potters and other artists, for grinding coarse bodies, such as colours, glass, chalk, &c. We have reason to suppose that in every family there was a mill of this kind. Moses forbade them to be taken in pawn; for that, says he, is the same thing as to take a man’s life to pledge. Michaelis, on this passage, observes that a man could not then grind, and consequently could not bake bread for the daily use of his family[383]. Grinding was at first the employment of the women, and particularly of the female slaves, as it is at present among uncivilised nations, and must therefore have required little strength[384]; but afterwards the mills were driven by bondsmen, around whose necks was placed a circular machine of wood, so that these poor wretches could not put their hands to their mouths, or eat of the meal.
In the course of time shafts were added to the mill that it might be driven by cattle, which were, as at present, blindfolded[385]. The first cattle-mills, molæ jumentariæ, had perhaps only a heavy pestle like the hand-mills[386]; but it must have been soon remarked that the labour would be more speedily accomplished if, instead of the pestle, a large heavy cylindrical stone should be employed. I am of opinion, however, that the first cattle-mills had not a spout or a trough as ours have at present; at least the hand-mills which Tournefort[387] saw at Nicaria, and which consisted of two stones, had neither; but the meal which issued from between the stones, through an opening made in the upper one, fell upon a board or table, on which the lower stone, that was two feet in diameter, rested.
The upper mill-stone was called meta, or turbo; and the lower one catillus. Meta signified also a cone with a blunt apex[388]; and it has on that account been conjectured that corn was at first rubbed into meal by rolling over it a conical stone flatted at the end, in the same manner as painters at present make use of a grinding-stone; and it is believed that the same name was afterwards given to the upper mill-stone. This conjecture is not improbable, as some rude nations still bruise their corn by grinding-stones. I do not, however, remember any passage in the ancients that mentions this mode of grinding; and I am of opinion, that the pestle of the hand-mill, for which the upper mill-stone was substituted, may, on account of its figure, have been also called meta. Niebuhr[389] found in Arabia, besides hand-mills, some grinding-stones, which differed from those used by us in their consisting not of a flat, but of an oblong hollow stone, or trough, with a pestle, which was not conical, but shaped like a spindle, thick in the middle and pointed at both ends. In this stone the corn, after being soaked in water, was ground to meal and then baked into cakes.
Respecting the figure and construction of the ancient hand-mills, I expected to find some information from engraved stones, and other remains of antiquity; but my researches would have proved fruitless, had not Professor Diez, to whose memory and erudition I am much indebted, pointed out to me the only figure of one remaining. I say the only one remaining with the more confidence, as Heyne tells us also that he remembers no other. Anthony Francis Gori[390] has described a red jasper, on which is engraved the naked figure of a man, who in his left-hand holds a sheaf of corn, and in his right a machine that in all probability is a hand-mill. Gori considers the figure as a representation of the god Eunostus, who, as Suidas says, was the god of mills. The machine, which Eunostus seems to exhibit, or to be surveying himself, is, as far as one can distinguish (for the stone is scarcely half an inch in size), shaped like a chest, narrow at the top, and wide at the bottom. It stands upon a table, and in the bottom there is a perpendicular pipe from which the meal, represented also by the artist, appears to be issuing. Above, the chest or body of the mill has either a top with an aperture, or perhaps a basket sunk into it, from which the corn falls into the mill. On one side, nearly about the middle of it, there projects a broken shank, which, without overstraining the imagination, may be considered as a handle, or that part of the mill which some called molile. Though this figure is small, and though it conveys very little idea of the internal construction, one may, however, conclude from it, that the roller, whether it was of wood or of iron, smooth or notched, did not stand perpendicularly, like those of our coffee-mills, but lay horizontally; which gives us reason to conjecture a construction more ingenious than that of the first invention. The axis of the handle had, perhaps, within the body of the mill, a crown-wheel, that turned a spindle, to the lower end of the perpendicular axis of which the roller was fixed. Should this be admitted, it must be allowed also, that the hand-mills of the ancients had not so much a resemblance to the before-mentioned colour-mills as to the philosophical mills of our chemists; and Langelott consequently will not be the real inventor of the latter. On the other side, opposite to that where the handle is, there arise from the mill of Eunostus two shafts, which Gori considers as those of a besom and a shovel, two instruments used in grinding; but as the interior part cannot be seen, it appears to me doubtful whether these may not be parts of the mill itself.
The remains of a pair of old Roman mill-stones were found in the beginning of the last century at Adel in Yorkshire, a description of which was given by Thornsby[391], in the Philosophical Transactions. One of the stones was twenty inches in breadth; thicker in the middle than at the edges, and consequently convex on one side. The other was of the same form, but had that thickness at the edges which the other had in the middle, and some traces of notching could be observed upon it.
I shall not here collect all those passages of the ancients which speak of hand- and cattle-mills, because they have been already collected by others, and afford very little information[392]. Neither shall I inquire to what Ceres the Grecians ascribed the invention of mills[393]; who Milantes was, to whom that honour has been given by Stephanus Byzantinus[394]; or how those mills were constructed which were first built by Myletes the son of Lelex, king of Laconia[395]. Such researches would be attended with little advantage. I shall proceed therefore to the invention of water-mills.
These appear to have been introduced in the time of Mithridates, Julius Cæsar, and Cicero. Because Strabo[396] relates that there was a water-mill near the residence of Mithridates, some have ascribed the honour of the invention to him; but nothing more can with certainty be concluded from this circumstance, than that water-mills were at that period known, at least in Asia. We are told by Pomponius Sabinus, in his remarks upon a poem of Virgil called Moretus, that the first mill seen at Rome was erected on the Tiber, a little before the time of Augustus; but of this he produces no proof. As he has taken the greater part of his remarks from the illustrations of Servius, and must have had a much completer copy of that author than any that has been printed, he may have derived this information from the same source[397]. The most certain proof that Rome had water-mills in the time of Augustus is the description which has been given of them by Vitruvius (lib. x. 10). We learn from this passage, that the ancients had wheels for raising water, which were driven by being trod upon by men. That condemnation to these machines was a punishment, appears from Artemidorus, lib. i. c. 50, and Sueton. Vita Tiber. cap. 51. And the pretty epigram of Antipater; “Cease your work, ye maids, ye who laboured in the mill; sleep now, and let the birds sing to the ruddy morning; for Ceres has commanded the water-nymphs to perform your task: these, obedient to her call, throw themselves on the wheel, force round the axle-tree, and by these means the heavy mill.” This Antipater[398], as Salmasius with great probability asserts, lived in the time of Cicero. Palladius[399] also speaks with equal clearness of water-mills, which he advises to be built on possessions that have running water, in order to grind corn without men or cattle.