570

APPENDIX.

Of old devices three eolipiles are figured : one is precisely the same asabove described by Bäte. French observes, that it “ blows a candle tomake the flame thereof strong for the melting of glasses and nipping themup.” No. 286 is another for fusing metals. A large eolipile is perma-nently connected to a furnace, the blast being conveyed through a brickwall. The following is all that he says respecting it : D “ signifies thatwhich blows a fire for the melting of any metall or such like Operation,and it blows most forcibly with a terrible noise.” The water was intro-duced through an opening at the top. E is a portable eolipile to be heldin the hand, and the blast applied to fixed objects. It appears fromFrench , and also from Ercker’s Work on Metallurgy, that eolipiles whenused for blowing fires and fusing metals, were formerly known as ThePhilosophical Bellows, a circumstance that renders their disappearancefrom modern writings still more singulär.

Since the insertion of Illustration No. 185, we have met with an Eng-lish translation of Ercker’s work, by Sir John Pettus , “ of the Society ofthe Mines Royal,” under Charles II . but who appears to, have derivedlittle wealth from mining speculations, since he rendered Ercker’s bookinto English while confined in prison for debt. The translation is illus-trated with fine copperplate engravings, and a dictionary of technical termsis subjoined. Under the Word bellows, Pettus mentions the “ philosophicalbellows the common smith’s bellows, and very large ones that wereworked by water-wheels, and which, he observes, were made “ in imita-tion of the nature of a cow beast, which in drawing in and forcing out herbrea’th, is said to bellow” —a quaint definition of bellows, but one which,we believe, gives the true etymology of the Word. Of the antiquity of“ philosophical bellows” there can be little doubt. They were probablyused by the fancy glass-blowers of Egypt , Greece and Rome, as well asby other artists in the reduction of metals. The transition from blowingordinary fires with eolipiles to such operations was obvious and easy.There is a passage in the book of Joshua which seems to refer to the earlyuse of them. In one of the contests of that warrior with the Canaanites , itis said he chased them to “ Mizrephoth-maim”—a Word signifying “ burn-ings of waters,” and “furnaces where metals are melted.” A place thatprobably derived its name from extensive forges that were urged by blastsfrom eolipiles.

Charging Eolipiles by Atmospheric Pressure , pp. 395, 407. Dr. French observes, “ You must heat them very hot, then put the noses thereof(which must have a very small hole in them, no bigger than a pin’s headmay go in) into a vessel of cold water, and they will presently suck in thewater.” Roman eolipiles were charged in the same way, as is clear fromtheir description by Vitruvius , for they had but one opening, through which,he says, they were filled with water, and out of which the blast issued.

Eolipilic Fire-Blowers and Idols, pp. 398-400. In addition to thosepassages of Scripture which we have supposed alluded to eolipiles, a fewothers may be named. The sacred writers, it is well known, often con-trast the power and other attributes of God with the impotency of idols :to adapt their instructions to idolaters, they represent the Almighty asexcited with anger, wrath, fury, &c. apparently in reference to suchpassions being exhibited (as we know they were) by idols, and particu-larly eolipilic idols. Why should God be represented as blasting orconsuming men with streams of fire from his mouth , and with smoke fromhis nostrils ? kindling coals by his breath ? Why is his anger said to smoke,to burn, to wax hot, &c. if it be not in reference to such idols as Pus-terich, orthose images described by Carpini? “By the blast of God, ” says