CHAPTER I.

SPINNING, DYEING, AND WEAVING.

Whether Silk is mentioned in the Old Testament--Earliest Clothing--Coats of Skin, Tunic, Simla--Progress of Invention Chinese chronology relative to the Culture of Silk--Exaggerated statements--Opinions of Mailla, Le Sage, M. Lavoisnè, Rev. J. Robinson, Dr. A. Clarke, Rev. W. Hales, D.D., Mairan, Bailly, Guignes, and Sir William Jones--Noah supposed to be the first emperor of China--Extracts from Chinese publications--Silk Manufactures of the island of Cos--Described by Aristotle--Testimony of Varro--Spinning and Weaving in Egypt--Great ingenuity of Bezaleel and Aholiab in the production of Figured Textures for the Jewish Tabernacle--Skill of the Sidonian women in the Manufacture of Ornamental Textures--Testimony of Homer--Great antiquity of the Distaff and Spindle--The prophet Ezekiel’s account of the Broidered Stuffs, etc. of the Egyptians--Beautiful eulogy on an industrious woman--Helen the Spartan, her superior skill in the art of Embroidery--Golden Distaff presented her by the Egyptian queen Alcandra--Spinning a domestic occupation in Miletus--Theocritus’s complimentary verses to Theuginis on her industry and virtue--Taste of the Roman and Grecian ladies in the decoration of their Spinning Implements--Ovid’s testimony to the skill of Arachne in Spinning and Weaving--Method of Spinning with the Distaff--Described by Homer and Catullus--Use of Silk in Arabia 500 years after the flood--Forster’s testimony.

To please the flesh a thousand arts contend: The miser’s heaps of gold, the figur’d vest, The gem, the silk-worm, and the purple dye, By toil acquir’d, promote no other end.--_Peristeph. Hymn._ x.

Whether silk is ever mentioned in the Old Testament cannot perhaps be determined.

In Ezek. xvi. 10 and 13, “silk” is used in the common English bible for משי, which occurs no where except here, but which, as appears from the context, certainly meant some valuable article of female dress. Le Clerc and Rosenmüller translate it “serico;” Cocceius, Schindler, Buxtorf, in their Lexicons, and Dr. John Taylor in his Concordance, give the same interpretation. Augusti and De Wette in their German translation make it signify “_a silken veil_.” Others give different interpretations. The only ground, on which silk of any kind is supposed to be meant, is that in the Alexandrine or Septuagint version משי is translated τρίχαπτον, and τρίχαπτον is explained by Hesychius to mean “the _silken_ web fitted to be placed over the hair of the head” (τὸ βομβύκινον ὕφασμα ὑπὲρ τῶν τριχῶν τῆς κεφαλῆς ἁπτόμενον), and that other ancient Greek lexicographers also suppose a silken garment to be meant.[1] But the meaning of τρίχαπτον is in reality as obscure as that of משי. Jerome could not discover it, and concluded that the word was invented by the Greek translator. It is now extant no where else except in a passage of the comic Pherecrates preserved in Athenæus. Schneider, followed by Passow, supposes it to mean some garment made of hair, and quotes to this effect the explanation of Pollux (2. 24.), πλέγμα ἐκ τριχῶν. Although, therefore, the term in question may possibly have denoted some elegant and costly ornament for the head, made at least partly of silk, yet this opinion appears to rest altogether upon the assumption, first, that the ancient lexicographers are accurate in their use of the epithet βομβύκινον, and secondly, that the Alexandrine version is accurate in adopting the word τρίχαπτον.

[1] See Schleusner, Lexicon in LXX., v. Τρίχαπτον.

In Isaiah xix. 9, according to King James’s Translators and Bishop Lowth, mention is made of those “_that work in fine flax_,” in the original עבדי פשתים שריקות. Rosenmüller adopts nearly the same interpretation, which is founded upon the use of the verb שרק or סרק in the Chaldee and Syriac dialects to denote the operation of _combing_ flax, wool, hair, and other substances. In this sense the word has been taken by the author of the Alexandrine Version, τοὺς ἐργαζομένους τὸ λίνον τὸ σχιστὸν; by Symmachus, who instead of σχιστὸν uses κτενιστὸν; and by Jerome, “qui operabantur linum _pectentes_.”

In the Targum of Jonathan and in the Syriac Version the same root is taken to denote silk; רסריקין פלחי כתנא Targ. ܥܒܕܝ ܟܬܢܐ ܕܣܪܩܝܢ Syr. Both of these seem to admit of the following literal translation, “_those who make silken tunics_,” or in Latin, “_Factores tunicarum e sericis_.”

Kimchi supposes שריקות to mean silk webs, observing that silk is called אל שרק by the Arabs. The same opinion has been adopted by Nicholas Fuller[2], Buxtorf, and other modern critics. Kennicott, however, arranges the words in two lines as follows,

ובשו עבדי פשתים שריקות וארגים הורי

According to this arrangement, which seems most suitable to the rules of grammatical construction, we have three co-ordinate phrases in the plural number, denoting three different classes of artificers. The second, שריקות, would by its termination denote _female_ artificers, viz. women employed in _combing_ wool, flax, or other substances. On the whole we are inclined to adopt this explanation of the word, as it appears to be attended with the least difficulty, either grammatical or etymological.

[2] Miscellanea Sacra, l. ii. c. 11.

Silk is mentioned Prov. xxxi. 22. in King James’s Translation, i. e. the common English version, and in the margin of Gen. xli. 42. But the use of the word is quite unauthorized.

After a full examination of the whole question Braunius[3] decides that there is no mention of silk in the whole of the Old Testament, and that it was unknown to the Hebrews in ancient times.

“There can be no doubt,” says Professor Hurwitz, “that manufactures and the arts must have attained a high degree of perfection at the time when Moses wrote; and that many of them were known long before that period, we have the evidence of Scripture. It is true that inventions were at first few, and their progress very slow, but they were suited to the then condition and circumstances of man, as is evident even in the art of clothing. Placed in the salubrious and mild air of paradise, our first parents could hardly want any other covering than what decency required. Accordingly we find that the first and only article of dress was the חגורה _chagora_, the belt, (not aprons, as in the established version). The materials of which it was made were fig leaves; (Gen. iii. 7.) the same tree that afforded them food and shelter, furnished them likewise with materials for covering their bodies. But when in consequence of their transgressions they were to be ejected from their blissful abode, and forced to dwell in less favourable regions, a more substantial covering became necessary, their merciful Creator made them (i. e. inspired them with the thoughts of making for themselves) כתנות עור coats of skins. (Gen. iii. 21.) The original word is כתנת _c’thoneth_, whence the Greek χιτὼν the tunic, a close garment that was usually worn next the skin, it reached to the knees, and had sleeves (in after times it was made either of wool or linen.) After man had subdued the sheep (Hebrew כבשׂ _caves_ from כגש to subdue[4]) and learned how to make use of its wool, we find a new article of dress, namely the שמלה _simla_, an upper garment: it consisted of a piece of cloth about six yards long and two or three wide, in shape not unlike our blankets. This will explain Gen. ix. 23, ‘And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father.’ It served as a dress by day, as a bed by night, (Exod. xxii. 26,) ‘If thou at all take thy neighbour’s raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down; for that is his covering only; it is his raiment for his skin: wherein shall he sleep?’ And sometimes burdens were carried in it, (Exod. xii. 34,) ‘And the people took their dough before it was leavened, their kneading-troughs being bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders.’

“In the course of time various other garments came into use, as mentioned in several other parts of Scripture. The materials of which these garments were usually made are specified in Leviticus xiii. 47-59, ‘The garment also that the plague of the leprosy is in, whether it be a woollen garment or a linen garment, whether it be in the _warp_ or _woof_, of linen or of woollen; whether in a skin, or in anything made of skin, &c.’”

[3] De vestitu Heb. Sacerdotum, l. 1. cap. viii. § 8.

[4] There is not the least shadow of truth in support of such a deduction; and particularly so since the general tenor of the Scriptures leads to a very different conclusion. We are, therefore, not authorized to give our support to any such hypothesis. The history of the Sheep and Goat is so interwoven with the history of man, that those naturalists have not reasoned correctly, who have thought it necessary to refer the first origin of either of them to any wild stock at all. Such view is, we imagine, more in keeping with the inferences to be drawn from Scripture History with regard to the early domestication of the sheep. Abel, we are told, was a keeper of sheep, and it was one of the firstlings of his flock that he offered to the Lord, and which, proving a more acceptable sacrifice, excited the implacable and fatal jealousy of his brother Cain. (See Part ii. pp. 217 and 293.)

In our search for the distant origin of any art or science, or in looking through the long vista of ages remote even to nations extinct before our own, we are favored with satisfactory evidence so long as we are accompanied with authentic records: beyond, all is dark, obscure, tradition, fable. On such ground it would be credulous or rash in the extreme to repeat as our own, an affirmation, when that rests on the single testimony of one party or interest, especially when that is of a very questionable character. It is even safer, when history or well authenticated records fail us, to appeal to philosophy, or to the well known laws of mind, from which all arts and science spring. The former favors us with the commanding evidence of certainty and decision; and though the latter may only afford the testimony of analogy, yet, is its probability more safe, at least, than what rests on misguided calculations or on the legendary tales of artifice and fiction.

We have, however, authentic testimony that the _inventive_ faculty existed at a very early period. The peculiar condition of man at that time must have afforded many imperative occasions for its exertion. Hence we read that “Jabal was the father of such as dwell in tents” (_i. e._ _inventor_ of tent-making); that “Jubal, his brother, was the father” (inventor) of musical instruments: such as the _kinnor_, harp, or stringed instruments, and the _ugab_, organ, or wind instruments; that “Tubal-cain was the instructor of every artificer in brass and iron, the first smith on record, or one to teach how to make instruments and utensils out of brass and iron; and that the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah, whom the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel affirms to have been the _inventrix_ of plaintive or elegiac poetry[5]. Here is then an account of the _inventive_ faculty being in exercise 3504 years before the Christian era; or 1156 years prior to the deluge; or 804 years before the earliest period assigned to the Chinese for the discovery of silk. And of whatever arts or sciences existing amongst men prior to the deluge, there is no difficulty in conceiving the possibility of the transmission of the leading and most essential parts, at least, to the post-diluvians, by the family of Noah.

[5] As a proof that the inventive faculty, as to every thing truly useful to man, originally proceeded from _the only “Giver of every good and perfect gift,”_ consult Isa. xxviii. 24-29: and also a beautiful comment by Dr. A. Clarke on, “And thou shalt speak unto all that are wise hearted, _whom I have filled_ with the spirit of wisdom.” Exod. xxviii. 3: and also on, “I have filled him with the spirit of God in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship; to devise cunning works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass; and in cutting of stones, to set them, and in carving of timber, to work in all manner of curious workmanship.” Exod. xxxi. 3, 4, and 5.

But instead of giving our unqualified assent to what has been servilely copied from book to book from the most accessible account, we shall advert to the great discrepancy relative to Chinese chronology, amongst those who have had equal access to their records. Thus the time of Fohi, the first emperor, has been said to be 2951 B. C., by some 2198 B. C., and by others 2057, or about 300 years after the deluge: of Hoang-ti, 2700 B. C., by Mailla it is quoted at 2602 B. C., by Le Sage at 2597 B. C., and by Robinson and others at 1703 B. C. Similar disagreements might, would our limits allow, be observed concerning the rest, and particularly of the emperors, Hiao-wenti, Chim-ti, Ming-ti, Youen-ti, Wenti, Wou-ti, and Hiao-wou-ti. Even in more modern times, and relative to a character so notorious as Confucius, no less than three dates are equally affirmed to be true. As to Hoang-ti, who is said to have begun _the culture of silk_, we are inclined to prefer the latter account, 1703 B. C., which makes him contemporary with Joseph, when prime minister over the land of Egypt.

As a confirmation of this, it may be stated, that by referring to the account given of nine[6] of the patriarchs at this period, we shall find that the average age of human life, _before much greater_, soon after rapidly declined. Now the average duration of the reigns of the first three[7] Chinese emperors, including Hoang-ti, was 118 years; of the five that immediately succeeded, only 68 years. After this, until the Christian era, the average duration of a single reign did not exceed 23 years, and thence until the present time not 13 years. Since, therefore, the average duration of the reign of the first three emperors bears an evident and fit proportion to that of the age of man at the period specified, though not at any other before or after, being in the former case as much too small as it would in the latter be too great, the opinion now offered is the only one that can be consistent with these striking facts; and, if duly considered, presents an argument strongly corroborating this view of the subject.

[6] Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph: Gen. xi. 16-26; xlvii. 28; and l. 26.

[7] Fohi, Eohi Chinun, and Hoang-ti.

To attempt to establish any greater certainty, in a case of this nature, the Chinese during the dynasty of Tschin, having, to conceal the truth, destroyed everything authentic, would be in vain. It would be even more rational to have recourse to the Vedas, or sacred books of the Brahmins, or to records in the Sanscrit, were it not a well known fact, that nearly all ancient nations, _except the Jews_, actuated by the same ambition, have betrayed a wish to have their origin traced as far back as the creation. And in the gratification of this passion none are so notoriously pre-eminent as the Egyptians, Hindoos, and Chinese.[8] For them the limits of the creation itself have been too narrow, and days, weeks, and even months too short, unless multiplied into years.[9]

[8] See Dr. A. Clarke’s remarks: end of Gen.

[9] See pp. 68, 74, 119 and 294.

The chronology relative to the early culture of silk, as found in Chinese documents, for several irrefragable objections already assigned, is exceedingly questionable, and therefore we are by no means pledged to affirm that either in the authenticity of the books, or in the correctness of the dates have we any faith. M. Lavoisnè dates the commencement of the Chinese dynasties at A. M.[10] 1816, _or 159 years after the deluge_. The Rev. J. Robinson of Christ Col., Cam., at A. M. 1947. We have already given as strong reasons, as under the extreme incertitude of the case, can, perhaps, be offered, for preferring the latter; the important points may be briefly stated, thus:

End of the deluge [11]1657 A. M. Fohi, first emperor, began to reign 1947 A. M. Noah died 2007 A. M. Eohi Chinun, second emperor, began to reign 2061 A. M. Hoang-ti, the third emperor, began to reign 2201 A. M. Hoang-ti after establishing the silk culture, died 2301 A. M.

Hoang-ti was therefore contemporary with Joseph when administering the affairs of Egypt.[12] But would we know what account the Chinese themselves give relative to the earliest introduction of the silk culture, we shall find it in the French version of the Chinese Treatises, by M. Stanislas Julien, or in the following words of pages 77 and 78, as translated and published in 1838, at Washington, under the title of “Summary of the principal Chinese Treatises upon the Culture of the Mulberry, and the rearing of Silk-worms.”

[10] A. M. signifies _Anno Mundi_, that is in the year of the World. The Year of Our Lord always commences on the first day of January, the day on which Christ was circumcised, being eight days old. From the Creation until the birth of Christ, was 4004 years.

Tirin places the birth of Christ in the 36th year of Herod, the 40th of Augustus, the 28th from the battle of Actium, the 749th of Rome, and the 4th of the 193d Olympiad.

[11] It will here not be improper to observe that the Samaritan text and Septuagint version of the Hebrew, carry the deluge as far back as to the year 3716 before Christ; or 1000 years before the Chinese account of Hoang-ti. On this subject see the New Analysis of Chronology, by the Rev. W. Hales, D.D. 4to., 3 vol.

[12] Joseph died in the 2369th year from the Creation.

In the book on silk-worms, we read: “The lawful wife of the emperor Hoang-ti, named _Si-ling-chi_, began the culture of silk. It was at that time that the emperor Hoang-ti invented the art of making garments(!).” The same fact is mentioned more in detail in the general history of China, by P. Maillà, in the year 2602, before our era (4447 years ago).

“This great prince (Hoang-ti) was desirous that Si-ling-chi, his legitimate wife, should contribute to the happiness of his people. He charged her to examine the silk-worms, and to test the practicability of using the thread. Si-ling-chi had a large quantity of these insects collected, which she fed herself, in a place prepared for that purpose, and discovered not only the means of raising them, but also the manner of reeling the silk, and of employing it to make garments.”

“It is through gratitude for so great a benefit,” says the history, entitled _Wai-ki_, “that posterity has deified Si-ling-chi, and rendered her particular honors under the name of the goddess of silk-worms.” (Memoirs on the Chinese, vol. 13, p. 240.)

We have seen that the most probable account relative to the time of Fohi, said to have been the first Chinese emperor, is that he reigned 2057 years before the Christian era, or in the year of the world 1947. “According to the most current opinion,” says M. Lavoisnè, “China was founded by one of the colonies formed at the dispersion of Noah’s posterity under the conduct of Yao, who took for his colleague Chun, afterwards his successor. But most writers consider Fohi to have been Noah himself(!).”

Now the deluge terminated A. M. 1657, and Noah lived after the deluge 350 years[13], and therefore died A. M. 2007; and as Fohi is said to have reigned 114 years, before Eohi Chun or Chinun succeeded him, he was contemporary, at least, with Noah. The ark rested on Mount Ararat, which is generally allowed to be one of the mountains of Armenia, to the east of the head of the Tigris. And here the same author remarks, that “in rather less than a century and a half, after the birth of Peleg, it is supposed that Noah, being then about his 840th year, _wearied with the growing depravity of his descendants, retired with a select company to a remote corner of Asia, and there began what in after ages has been termed the Chinese monarchy_.”[14] This view of the subject, we believe, coincides perfectly with the reputable testimonies presented by Mairan, Bailly, Guignes, and Sir William Jones, and demonstrates that the transit of more central aborigines, since the deluge, to the extremes of China, was perfectly feasible,[15] and a matter of even high probability.

[13] Gen. ix. 28.

[14] Clarke’s “Treatise on the Mulberry-tree, and Silk-worm,” pp. 14, 18, 20, 21, 27, and 34.

[15] See chap. iv. p. 67. Also Plate VII. (Map.)

The first ancient author, who affords any evidence respecting the use of silk, is Aristotle. He does not, however, appear to have been accurately acquainted with the changes of the silk-worm; nor does he say, that the animal was bred or the raw material produced in Cos. He only says, “Pamphile, daughter of Plates, is reported to have first woven it in Cos.” (See Chapters ii. iii. and iv. of this Part.)

Long before the time of Aristotle a regular trade had been established in the interior of Asia, which brought its most valuable productions, and especially those which were most easily transported, to the shores opposite this flourishing island. Nothing therefore is more likely than that the raw silk from the interior of Asia was brought to Cos and there manufactured. We shall see hereafter from the testimony of Procopius, that it was in like manner brought some centuries later to be woven in the Phœnician cities, Tyre and Berytus.

The arts of spinning and weaving, which rank next in importance to agriculture, having been found among almost all the nations of the old and new continents, even among those little removed from barbarism, are reasonably supposed to have been invented at a very remote period of the world’s history[16]. They evidently existed in Egypt in the time of Joseph (1700 years before the Christian era), as it is recorded that Pharaoh “arrayed him in vestures of fine linen.” (Genesis xli. 42.) Two centuries later, the Hebrews carried with them on their departure from that ancient seat of civilization, the arts of _spinning_, _dyeing_, _weaving_, and _embroidery_; for when Moses constructed the tabernacle in the wilderness, “the women that were wise-hearted did spin with their hands, and brought that which they had spun, both of blue, and of purple, and of scarlet, and of fine linen.” (Exod. xxxv. 25.) They also “spun goats’ hair;” and Bezaleel and Aholiab “worked all manner of work, of the engraver, and of the cunning workman, and of _the embroiderer, in blue, and of purple, and in scarlet, and in fine linen, and of the weaver_.” These passages contain the earliest mention of woven clothing, which was linen, the national manufacture of Egypt. The prolific borders of the Nile furnished from the remotest periods, as at the present time, abundance of the finest flax[17]; and it appears, from the testimony both of sacred and profane history, that linen continued to be almost the only kind of clothing used in Egypt till after the Christian era[18]. The Egyptians exported their “linen yarn,” and “fine linen,” to the kingdom of Israel, in the days of Solomon, (2 Chron. i. 16; Prov. vii. 16;) their “fine linen with broidered work,” to Tyre, (Ezek. xxvii. 7.)

[16] According to Pliny, Semiramis, the Assyrian queen, was believed to have been the inventress of the art of weaving. Minerva is in some of the ancient statutes represented with a distaff, to intimate that she taught men the art of spinning; and this honor is given by the Egyptians to Isis, by the Mohammedans to a son of Japhet, by the Chinese to the consort of their emperor Yao, and by the Peruvians to Mamaoella, wife to Manco-Capac, their first sovereign. These traditions serve only to carry the invaluable arts of spinning and weaving up to an extremely remote period, long prior to that of authentic history.

[17] Paintings representing the gathering and preparation of flax have been found on the walls of the ancient sepulchres at Eleithias and Beni Hassan, in Upper Egypt, and are described and copied by Hamilton.--“Remarks on several parts of Turkey, and on ancient and modern Egypt,” pp. 97 and 287, plate 23.

[18] Herodotus, book ii. c. 37, 81. (See Plate VI.)

The women of Sidon before the Trojan war, were especially celebrated for the skill in embroidery: and Homer, who lived 900 years B. C., mentions Helen _as being engaged in embroidering the combats of the Greeks and Trojans_.

The transition from vegetable fibre to the use of animal staples, such as wool and hair, could not have been very difficult; indeed, as already stated, it took place at a period of which we possess no very authentic written record.

The instrument used for spinning in all countries, from the earliest times, was the distaff and spindle. This simple apparatus was put by the Greek mythologists into the hands of Minerva and the Parcæ; Solomon employs upon it the industry of the virtuous woman; to the present day the distaff is used in India, Egypt, and other eastern countries.

The ancient spindle or distaff was a very simple instrument. The late Lady Calcott informs us, that it continued even to our own days to be used by the Hindoos in all its primitive simplicity. “I have seen,” she says, “the rock or distaff formed simply of the leading shoot of some young tree, carefully peeled, it might be birch or elder, and, further north, of fir or pine; and the spindle formed of the beautiful shrub Euonymus, or spindle-tree.”[19]

[19] The superior fineness of some Indian muslins, and their quality of retaining, longer than European fabrics, an appearance of excellence, has occasioned a belief that the cotton wool of which they are woven is superior to any known elsewhere; this, however, is so far from being the fact, that no cotton is to be found in India which at all equals in quality the better kinds produced in the United States of America. The excellence of India muslins must be wholly ascribed to the skilfulness and patience of the workmen, as shown in the different processes of spinning and weaving. (See Plate v.) Their yarn is spun upon the distaff, and it is owing to the dexterous use of the finger and thumb in forming the thread, and to the moisture which it thus imbibes, that its fibres are more perfectly incorporated than they can be through the employment of any mechanical substitutes.

Spinning among the Egyptians, as among our ancestors of no very distant age, was a domestic occupation in which ladies of rank did not hesitate to engage. The term “spinster” is yet applied to unmarried ladies of every rank, and there are persons yet alive who remember to have seen the spinning wheel an ordinary piece of furniture in domestic economy.

We are told that “Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt and linen yarn; the king’s merchants received the linen yarn at a price.” (1 Kings, x. 28.) And the linen of Egypt was highly valued in Palestine, for the seducer, in Proverbs, says, “I have decked my bed with coverings of tapestry, with carved works, with fine linen of Egypt.” (Prov. vii. 16.) The prophet Ezekiel also declares that the export of the textile fabrics was an important branch of Phœnician commerce; for in his enumeration of the articles of traffic in Tyre, he says: “Fine linen with broidered work from Egypt was that which thou spreadest forth to be thy sail; blue and purple from the isles of Elisha was that which covered thee.” (Ezek. xxvii. 7.)

It deserves to be remarked that the prophet here joins Egypt with the isles of Elisha or Elis, that is, the districts of western Greece, and thus confirms the ancient tradition recorded by Herodotus of some Egyptian colonists having settled in that country, which the sceptics of the German school of history have thought proper to deny.[20] Spinning was wholly a female employment; it is rather singular that we find this work frequently performed by a large number collected together, as if the factory system had been established 3000 years ago.

[20] The sceptical school of history, founded by Niebuhr, in Germany, and extended by his disciples to a sweeping incredulity, far beyond what was contemplated by the founder, has labored hard to prove, that the Greek system of civilization was indigenous, and that the candid confession of Herodotus, attributing to Egyptian colonies the first introduction of the arts of life into Hellas, was an idle tale, or a groundless tradition. But the examination of the monuments has proved that Greek art originated in Egypt; and that the elements of the architectural, sculptural, and pictorial wonders which have rendered Greece and Italy illustrious, were derived from the valley of the Nile.

We have, however, many specimens of spinning as a domestic employment. Indeed, attention to the spindle and distaff forms a leading feature in king Lemuel’s description of a virtuous woman. “Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life. She seeketh wool and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands. She is like the merchant’s ships; she bringeth her food from afar. She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens. She considereth a field, and buyeth it; with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard. She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms. She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night. She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff. She stretcheth out her hand to the _poor_; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the _needy_. She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet. She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple. Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land. She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.” (Prov. xxxi. 10-24.)

Hamilton and Wilkinson have already shown that many of the descriptions of combats we meet in the Iliad appear to have been derived from the battle pieces on the walls of the Theban palaces, which the poet himself pretty plainly intimates that he had visited. The same observation may be applied to most of Homer’s pictures of domestic life. We find the lady of the mansion superintending the labors of her servants, and using the distaff herself. Her spindle made of some precious material, richly ornamented, her beautiful work-basket, or rather vase, and the wool dyed of some bright hue to render it worthy of being touched by aristocratic fingers, remind us of the appropriate present which the Egyptian queen, Alcandra, made to the Spartan Helen; for the beauty of that frail fair one scarcely is less celebrated than her skill in embroidery and every species of ornamental work. After Polybus had given his presents to Menelaus, who stopped at Egypt on his return from Troy,

Alcandra, consort of his high command, A golden distaff gave to Helen’s hand; And that rich vase, with living sculpture wrought, Which, heap’d with wool, the beauteous Phylo brought; The silken fleece empurpled for the loom, Rivall’d the hyacinth in vernal bloom. _Odyssey_, iv.

In the hieroglyphics over persons employed with the spindle on the Egyptian monuments, it is remarkable that the word _saht_, which in Coptic signifies to twist, constantly occurs. The spindles were generally of wood, and in order to increase their impetus in turning, the circular head was occasionally of gypsum, or composition: some, however, were of a light plaited work, made of rushes, or palm leaves, stained of various colors, and furnished with a loop of the same materials, for securing the twine after it was wound[21]. Sir Gardner Wilkinson found one of these spindles at Thebes, with some of the linen thread upon it, and is now in the Berlin Museum.

[21] The ordinary distaff does not occur in these subjects, but we may conclude they had it. Homer mentions one of gold, given to Helen by “Alcandra the wife of Polybus,” who lived in Egyptian Thebes.--Od. iv. 131.

Theocritus has given us a very striking proof of the pleasure which the women of Miletus took in these employments; for, when he went to visit his friend Nicias, the Milesian physician, to whom he had previously addressed his eleventh and thirteenth Idylls, he carried with him an ivory distaff as a present for Theugenis, his friend’s wife. He accompanied his gift with the following verses, which modestly commend the matron’s industry and virtue, and, at the same time, throw an interesting light on the domestic economy of the ladies of Miletus:

O Distaff, friend to warp and woof, Minerva’s gift in man’s behoof, Whom careful housewives still retain, And gather to their households gain; With me repair, no vulgar prize, Where the famed towers of Nileus rise[22], Where Cytherea’s swayful power Is worship’d in the reedy bower. Thither, would Jove kind breezes send, I steer my course to meet my friend, Nicias, the Graces’ honor’d child, Adorn’d with sweet persuasion mild, That I his kindness may requite-- May be delighted, and delight. Thee, ivory distaff, I provide, A present for his blooming bride; With her thou wilt sweet toil partake And aid her _various vests_ to make. For Theugenis the shepherds shear The sheep’s soft fleeces twice a year, So dearly industry she loves And all that wisdom points, approves, I ne’er design’d to bear thee hence To the dull house of Indolence; For, in that city thou wert framed Which Archias built, Corinthian named,-- Fair Syracuse, Sicilia’s pride, Where troops of famous men abide. Dwell thou with him whose art can cure Each dire disease that men endure; Thee to Miletus now I give, Where pleasure-crown’d Ionians live; That Theugenis by thee may gain Fair honor with the female train; And thou renew within her breast Remembrance of her muse-charm’d guest. Admiring thee, each maid will call The favor great, the present small; For love the smallest gift commends, All things are valued by our friends. _Idyll_, xxviii.

[22] Miletus was called “the towers of Nileus,” from its having been founded by Nileus, the son of the celebrated king Codrus, who devoted himself for the safety of Athens. Nileus was so indignant at the abolition of royalty on his father’s death, that he migrated to Ionia.

The Roman and Grecian ladies displayed not less taste in the decoration of their various spinning implements, than those of modern times in the ornaments of their work-table. The _calathus_ or _qualus_ was the basket in which the wool was kept for the fair spinsters. It was usually made of wicker-work. Thus Catullus in his description of the nuptials of Peleus and Thetis, says:

The softest fleeces, white as driven snow, Beside their feet in osier baskets glow. _Poema_, lxiv.

Homer asserts that the Egyptian queen Alcandra presented Helen with a silver work-basket as well as a golden distaff (Odyss. iv.); and from the paintings on ancient vases, we see that the _calathi_ of ladies of rank were tastefully wrought and richly ornamented. From the term _qualus_ or _quasillus_, equivalent to _calathus_, the Romans called the female slaves employed in spinning _quasillariæ_.

The material prepared for spinning was wrapped loosely round the distaff, the wool being previously combed, or the flax hackled by processes not very dissimilar to those used at the present day amongst the peasantry in the west of Ireland. The ball thus formed on the distaff required to be arranged with some neatness and skill, in order that the fibres should be sufficiently loose to be drawn out by the hand of the spinner. Ovid declares, that Arachne’s skill in this simple process excited the wonder of the nymphs who came to see her triumphs in the textile art, not less than the finished labors of the loom.

Oft, to admire the niceness of her skill, The nymphs would quit their fountain, shade, or hill: Thither from green Tymolus they repair, And leave the vineyards, their peculiar care; Thither from fair Pactolus’ golden stream, Drawn by her art, the curious Naids came. Nor would the work, when finish’d, please so much As while she wrought to view each graceful touch; Whether the shapeless wool in balls she wound, Or with quick motion turn’d the spindle round. _Met_, vi.

The distaff was generally about three feet in length, commonly a stick or reed, with an expansion near the top for holding the ball. It was sometimes, as we have shown, composed of richer materials. The distaff was usually held under the left arm, and the fibres were drawn out from the projecting ball, being, at the same time, spirally twisted by the forefinger and thumb of the right hand. The thread so produced was wound upon the spindle until the quantity was as great as it would carry.

The spindle was made of some light wood, or reed, and was generally from eight to twelve inches in length. At the top of it was a slit, or catch, to which the thread was fixed, so that the weight of the spindle might carry the thread down to the ground as fast as it was finished. Its lower extremity was inserted into a whorl, or wheel, made of stone, metal, or some heavy material which both served to keep it steady and to promote its rotation. The spinner, who, as we have said before, was usually a female, every now and then gave the spindle a fresh gyration by a gentle touch so as to increase the twist of the thread. Whenever the spindle reached the ground a length was spun; the thread was then taken out of the slit, or clasp, and wound upon the spindle; the clasp was then closed again, and the spinning of a new thread commenced. All these circumstances are briefly mentioned by Catullus, in a poem from which we have already quoted:--

The loaded distaff, in the left hand placed, With spongy coils of snow-white wool was graced; From these the right hand lengthening fibres drew Which into thread ’neath nimble fingers grew. At intervals a gentle touch was given By which the twirling whorl was onward driven. Then, when the sinking spindle reach’d the ground, The recent thread around its spire was wound, Until the clasp within its nipping cleft Held fast the newly-finish’d length of weft.

In order to understand this description of Catullus, it is necessary to bear in mind, that as the bobbin of each spindle was loaded with thread, it was taken off from the whorl and placed in a basket until there was a sufficient quantity for the weavers to commence their operations.

Homer incidentally mentions the spool or spindle on which the weft-yarn was wound, in his description of the race at the funeral-games in honor of Patroclus:

Oileus led the race; The next Ulysses, measuring pace with pace Behind him, diligently close he sped, As closely following as the running thread The spindle follows, and displays the charms Of the fair spinner’s breast, and moving arms. _Iliad_, xxiii.

In India women of all castes prepare the cotton thread for the weaver, spinning it on a piece of wire, or a very thin rod of polished iron with a ball of clay at one end; this they turn round with the left hand, and supply the cotton with the right; the thread is then wound upon a stick or pole, and sold to the merchants or weavers; for the coarser thread the women make use of a wheel very similar to that of the Irish spinster, though upon a smaller construction. (For further information on the manufactures of India, their present state, &c., see