[1709] Ajasson considers this to be Bismuth; but it is more probable that Beckmann is right in his conclusion, supported by Agricola, Entzel, Fallopius, Savot, Bernia, and Jung, that it was a compound metal, the Werk of the German smelting-houses: a metal not much unlike our pewter, probably. See Beckmann, Hist. Inv. Vol. II. pp. 209, 212, 224. Bohn’s Edition.
[1710] See B. xxxiii. c. [31], and c. [53] of this Book.
[1711] A compound metal, probably, somewhat like pewter. See Note [1709] above. He evidently alludes to the process of “tinning.”
[1712] In B. xxxiii. c. [45]: where he says that the best mirrors were formerly made of a mixture of stannum and copper.—B. See Beckmann, Hist. Inv. Vol. II. pp. 60-62, 72.
[1713] Or tin.
[1714] “Silver mixture.”
[1715] Such a mixture as this would in reality become more valuable than “argentarium,” as the proportion would be two-thirds of tin and one of lead. How then could the workmen merit the title of dishonest? Beckmann suggests that the tinning ought to have been done with pure tin, but that unprincipled artists employed tin mixed with lead. It is most probable, however, that Pliny himself has made a mistake, and that we should read “equal parts of black lead” (our lead); in which case the mixture passed off as “argentarium,” instead of containing equal parts of tin and lead, would contain five-sixths of lead. See Beckmann, Hist. Inv. Vol. II. p. 221. Bohn’s Edition.
[1716] All these readings are doubtful in the extreme.
[1717] As being too brittle, probably; the reason suggested by Beckmann, Vol. II. p. 221.
[1718] Literally, “inboiled,” being coated by immersion in the molten tin.