The Art of Perfumery, George William Septimus Piesse [christmas read aloud .TXT] 📗

Filter if necessary.

Without unnecessarily repeating similar formulæ, it will be obvious to the reader that vinegar of any flower may be prepared in a similar way to those above noticed; thus, for vinaigre à la jasmine, or for vinaigre à la fleur d'orange, we have only to substitute the esprit de jasmine, or the esprit de fleur d'orange, in place of the Eau de Cologne, to produce orange-flower or jasmine vinegars; however, these latter articles are not in demand, and our only reason for explaining how such preparations may be made, is in order to suggest the methods of procedure to any one desirous of making them leading articles in their trade.

We perhaps may observe, en passant, that where economy in the production of any of the toilet vinegars is a matter of consideration, they have only to be diluted with rose-water down to the profitable strength required.

Any of the perfumed vinegars that are required to produce opalescence, when mixed with water, must contain some gum-resin, like the hygienic vinegar, as above. Either myrrh, benzoin, storax, or tolu, answer equally well.

In the previous articles we have endeavored to explain the mode of preparing the primitive perfumes—the original odors of plants. It will have been observed, that while the majority can be obtained under the form of otto or essential oil, there are others which hitherto have not been isolated, but exist only in solution in alcohol, or in a fatty body. Of the latter are included all that are most prized, with the exception of otto of rose—that diamond among the odoriferous gems. Practically, we have no essential oils or ottos of Jasmine, Vanilla, Acacia, Tuberose, Cassie, Syringa, Violets, and others. What we know of these odors is derived from esprits, obtained from oils or fats, in which the several flowers have been repeatedly infused, and afterwards infusing such fats or oils in alcohol. Undoubtedly, these odors are the most generally pleasing, while those made from the essential oils (i.e. otto), dissolved in spirit, are of a secondary character. The simple odors, when isolated, are called Essential Oils or Ottos; when dissolved or existing in solution in alcohol, by the English they are termed Essences, and by the French Extraits or Esprits; a few exceptions prove this rule. Essential oil of orange-peel, and of lemon-peel, are frequently termed in the trade "Essence" of orange and "Essence" of lemons, instead of essential oil or otto of lemons, &c. The sooner the correct nomenclature is used in perfumery, as well as in the allied arts, the better, and the fewer blunders will be made in the dispensatory. It appears to the writer, that if the nomenclature of these substances were revised, it would be serviceable; and he would suggest that, as a significant, brief, and comprehensive term, Otto be used as a prefix to denote that such and such a body is the odoriferous principle of the plant. We should then have otto of lavender instead of essential oil of lavender, &c. &c. In this work it will be seen that the writer has generally used the word otto in place of "essential oil," in accordance with his views. Where there exists a solution of an essential oil in a fat oil, the necessity of some such significant distinction is rendered obvious, for commercially such articles are still called "oils"—oil of jasmine, oil of roses, &c. It cannot be expected that the public will use the words "fat" oil and "essential" oil, to distinguish these differences of composition.

There are several good reasons why the odoriferous principle of plants should not be denominated oils. In the first place, it is a bad principle to give any class of substances the same signification as those belonging to another. Surely, there are enough distinguishing qualities in their composition, their physical character, and chemical reaction, to warrant the application of a significant name to that large class of substances known as the aroma of plants!

When the chemical nomenclature was last revised, the organic bodies were little dealt with. We know that we owe this universal "oil" to the old alchemist, much in the same way as "spirit" has been used, but a little consideration quickly indicates the folly of its continued use. We can no longer call otto of rosemary, or otto of nutmegs, essential oil of rosemary or nutmegs, with any more propriety than we can term sulphuric acid "oil" of vitriol. All the chemical works speak of the odoriferous bodies as "essential" or "volatile" oils, and of the greasy bodies as "fat" or "unctuous" oils. Oils, properly so called, unite with salifiable bases and form soap; whereas the essential or volatile oils, i.e. what we would please to call the ottos, do no such thing. On the contrary, they unite with acids in the majority of instances.

The word oil must hereafter be confined to those bodies to which its literal meaning refers—fat, unctuous, inodorous (when pure), greasy substances—and can no longer be applied to those odoriferous materials which possess qualities diametrically opposite to oil. We have grappled with "spirit," and fixed its meaning in a chemical sense; we have no longer "spirit" of salt, or "spirit" of hartshorn. Let us no longer have almond oil "essential," almond oil "unctuous," and the like.

It remains only for us to complete the branch of perfumery which relates to odors for the handkerchief, by giving the formulæ for preparing the most favorite "bouquets" and "nosegays." These, as before stated, are but mixtures of the simple ottos in spirit, which, properly blended, produce an agreeable and characteristic odor,—an effect upon the smelling nerve similar to that which music or the mixture of harmonious sounds produces upon the nerve of hearing, that of pleasure.