Mirrors were made also of rubies, as we are assured by Pliny168, who refers to Theophrastus for his authority; but this precious stone is never found now of such a size as to render this use possible; and Gary and the anonymous Italian before-mentioned have proved very properly that Pliny has committed a gross mistake, which has not been observed by Hardouin. Theophrastus, in the passage alluded to169, does not speak of a ruby, but of the well-known black marble of Chio, though he calls both carbunculus, a name given to the ruby on account of its likeness to a burning coal, and to the black marble on account of its likeness to a quenched coal or cinder; and the latter, as well as the obsidian stone, was used sometimes for mirrors.
The account how mirrors were formed by the native Americans, before they had the misfortune to become acquainted with the Europeans, is of considerable importance in the history of this art. These people had indeed mirrors which the Europeans could not help admiring. Some of them were made of black, somewhat transparent, vitrified lava, called by the Spaniards gallinazo, and which is of the same kind as the obsidian stone employed by the Romans for the like purpose. Of this substance the Americans had plane, concave, and convex mirrors. They had others also made of a mineral called the Inca’s stone170, which, as has been already said by Bomare, Sage, Wallerius, and other mineralogists, was a compact pyrites or marcasite, susceptible of a fine polish; and on that account often brought to Europe, and worn formerly in rings under the name of the stone of health. Ulloa says the Inca’s stone is brittle, opake, and of a somewhat bluish colour; it has often veins which cannot be polished, and where these veins are it frequently breaks. The mirrors formed of it, which he saw, were from two to three inches in diameter; but he saw one which was a foot and a half. The opinion which some have entertained, that these mirrors were cast, has no other foundation than the likeness of polished marcasite to cast brass. This mineral is very proper for reflecting images; and I am inclined to think that the Peruvians had better mirrors than the Greeks or the Romans, among whom we find no traces of marcasite being employed in that manner. It appears, however, that the Indians had mirrors also of silver, copper, and brass171.
I come now to the question in what century were invented our glass mirrors, which consist of a glass plate covered at the back with a thin leaf of metal. This question has been answered by some with so much confidence, that one might almost consider the point to be determined; but instead of real proofs, we find only conjectures or probabilities; and I must here remark, that I cannot help thinking that they are older than has hitherto been supposed, however desirous I may be to separate historical truth from conjecture. When I have brought together everything which I know on the subject, I would say, that attempts were even made at Sidon to form mirrors of glass; but that they must have been inferior to those of metal, because they did not banish the use of the latter. The first glass mirrors appear to me to have been of black-coloured glass, or an imitation of the obsidian stone; and to have been formed afterwards of a glass plate with some black foil placed behind it172. At a much later period, blown glass, while hot, was covered in the inside with lead or some metallic mixture; and still later, and, as appears, first at Murano, artists began to cover plates of glass with an amalgam of tin and quicksilver. The newest improvements are, the casting of glass-plates, and the art of making plates equally large by blowing and stretching, without the expensive and uncertain process which is required for casting.
That glass mirrors were made at the celebrated glass-houses of Sidon, is mentioned so clearly by Pliny that it cannot be doubted173. When I read the passage, however, without prejudice, without taking into consideration what others have said on it, and compare it with what certain information the ancients, in my opinion, give on the same subject, I can understand it no otherwise than as if the author said, that the art of manufacturing glass various ways was invented, principally, at Sidon, where attempts had been made to form mirrors of it. He appears therefore to allude to experiments which had not completely succeeded; and to say that such attempts, at the time when he wrote, had been entirely abandoned and were almost forgotten. Had this circumstance formed an epoch in the art, Pliny, in another place, where he describes the various improvements of it so fully, would not have omitted it; but of those experiments he makes no further mention174. All the inventions which he speaks of, evidently relate to metal mirrors only, of which the silver, at that time, were the newest. Had the Sidonian mirrors consisted of glass plates covered at the back, those of metal, the making of which was, at any rate, attended with no less trouble, which were more inconvenient for use on account of their aptness to break, their requiring to be frequently cleaned and preserved in a case, and which were more unpleasant on account of the faint, dull image which they reflected, could not possibly have continued so long in use as they really did; and circumstances and expressions relative to glass mirrors must certainly have occurred. Though glass continued long to be held in high estimation, particularly at Rome; and though many kinds of glass-ware are mentioned in ancient authors, among costly pieces of furniture, mirrors are mentioned only among articles of silver plate. I am acquainted with no certain trace of glass mirrors from the time of Pliny to the thirteenth century; but after that period, at which they are spoken of in the clearest manner, we find them often mentioned in every century; and mirrors of metal at length entirely disappear.
How the Sidonian mirrors were made, is not known; but if I may be allowed a conjecture, I am of opinion that they consisted of dark-coloured glass, which had a resemblance to the obsidian stone. Such is the usual progress of inventions. At those periods one had no other representation of glass mirrors than that afforded by natural glass or vitreous stones. When artists wished to make mirrors of glass, they would try to imitate the latter. After the invention of printing, people endeavoured to render printed books as like as possible to manuscripts; because they imagined that this invention was to be approved only so far as it enabled them to imitate these, without observing that it could far excel the art of writing. But the Sidonian glass mirrors were so much surpassed by the silver or brass ones, which perhaps were invented about the same time, that on this account they were never brought into use. Glass mirrors, perhaps, would have been invented sooner, had mankind employed at an earlier period glass-windows, which often, when they are shut on the outside so that no light can pass through them, reflect images in a much better manner than the best mirrors of metal. This observation, which may be made daily, would then, in all probability, have been sooner turned to advantage.
No one has employed a greater profusion of words to maintain an opinion opposite to mine, than Abat; but when his proofs are divested of their ornaments, they appear so weak that one has very little inclination to agree with him. “The observation,” says he, “that a plate of glass is the best mirror, when all other rays of light, except those reflected back from the glass, are prevented, by a metallic covering placed behind it, from falling on the eye, is so easy, that it must have been made immediately after the invention of glass.” Who does not think here of Columbus and his egg? Instances occur in history of many having approached so near an invention, that we are astonished how they could have missed it; so that we may exclaim with a certain emperor, “Taurum toties non ferire difficile est175.” “The Sidonian invention,” continues he, “would not have been worth mentioning, had it not produced better mirrors than those which the ancients had before of the obsidian stone. But these even are mentioned only once, in so short and abrupt a manner, and as it were out of ridicule, that one may easily perceive they were not much esteemed.” “If the Sidonians,” adds he, “were not the inventors, let some other inventor be mentioned;” and he assures us that he had sought information on this subject, in Neri,