The History of Silk, Cotton, Linen, Wool, and Other Fibrous Substances; Including Observations on Spinning, Dyeing, and Weaving.

CHAPTER I.

Chapter 4910,722 wordsPublic domain

FLAX.

CULTIVATION AND MANUFACTURE OF FLAX BY THE ANCIENTS--ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE SCRIPTURES, ETC.

Earliest mention of Flax--Linen manufactures of the Egyptians--Linen worn by the priests of Isis--Flax grown extensively in Egypt--Flax gathering--Envelopes of Linen found on Egyptian mummies--Examination of mummy-cloth--Proved to be Linen--Flax still grown in Egypt--Explanation of terms--Byssus--Reply to J. R. Forster--Hebrew and Egyptian terms--Flax in North Africa, Colchis, Babylonia--Flax cultivated in Palestine--Terms for flax and tow--Cultivation of Flax in Palestine and Asia Minor--In Elis, Etruria, Cisalpine Gaul, Campania, Spain--Flax of Germany, of the Atrebates, and of the Franks--Progressive use of linen among the Greeks and Romans.

The earliest mention of flax by any author occurs in the account of the plague of hail, which devastated Lower Egypt, Ex. ix. 31. The Hebrew term for flax in this and various other passages of the old Testament is פשתה; the corresponding word in the Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic versions is כתנא Λίνον, LXX. Linum, _Jerome_.

In Isaiah xix. 9, according to King James’s Translators and Bishop Lowth, mention is made of those that “_work in fine flax_,” and which was one of the chief employments of the Egyptians. According to Herodotus (ii. 37, 81.) the Egyptians universally wore linen shirts, which were fringed at the bottom. The fringe consisted of the _thrums_, or ends of the webs. Thrums used for this purpose may be seen in the cloths which are found in Egyptian mummies.

Besides the linen shirt the priests wore an upper garment of linen, more especially when they officiated in the temples. This garment was probably of the exact form of a modern linen sheet. The distinction between the shirt and the sheet worn over it, as well as the reason why linen was used for all sacred purposes, is clearly expressed in the two following passages from Apuleius and Jerome.

Etiamnè cuiquam mirum videri potest, cui sit ulla memoria religionis, hominem tot mysteriis Deûm conscium, quædam sacrorum crepundia domi adversare, atque ea lineo texto involvere, quod purissimum est rebus divinis velamentum? Quippe lana, segnissimi corporis excrementum, pecori detracta, jam inde Orphei et Pythagoræ scitis, profanus vestitus est. Sed enim mundissima lini seges, inter optimas fruges terrâ exorta, non modò indutui et amictui sanctissimis Ægyptiorum sacerdotibus, sed opertui quoque in rebus sacris usurpatur.

_Apuleii Apolog. p. 64. ed. Pricæi._

Can any one impressed with a sense of religion wonder, that a man who has been made acquainted with so many mysteries of the gods, should keep at home certain sacred emblems and wrap them in a linen cloth, the purest covering for divine objects? For wool, the excretion of a sluggish body, taken from sheep, was deemed a profane attire even according to the early tenets of Orpheus and Pythagoras. But flax, that cleanest and best production of the field, is used, not only for the inner and outer clothing of the most holy priests of the Egyptians, but also for covering sacred objects.--_Yates’s Translation._

_Indutus_ was the putting on of the _inner_, amictus of the _outer_ garment.

Vestibus lineis utuntur Ægyptii sacerdotes non solum extrinsecus, sed et intrinsecus.--_Hieron. in Ezek. 44. folio 257._

The Egyptian priests use linen garments, not only without, but also within.

Plutarch says[469], that the priests of Isis wore linen on account of its purity, and he remarks how absurd and inconsistent would have been their conduct, if they had carefully plucked the hairs from their own bodies, and yet clothed themselves in wool, which is the hair of sheep. He also mentions the opinion of some who thought that flax was used for clothing, because the _color of its blossom resembles the etherial blue which surrounds the world_; and he states, that the priests of Isis were also buried in their sacred vestments. According to Strabo, Panopolis was an ancient seat of the linen manufacture[470].

[469] L. xvii. § 41. p. 586. ed. Siebenkees.

[470] De Iside et Osiride, prope init. Opp. ed. H. Stephani, Par. 1572, tom. i p. 627, 628.

Celsius in his Hierobotanicon (_vol._ ii. _p._ 287-291.), and Forster in his treatise De Bysso Antiquorum (_p._ 65-68.) have quoted other passages from ancient authors, which concur to show the abundance and excellence of the flax grown anciently in Lower Egypt, and more particularly in the vicinity of Pelusium, the general employment of it among the inhabitants for clothing, and the exclusive use of linen cloth for the garments of the priesthood and for other sacred purposes, and especially for the worship of Isis and Osiris. From the same authorities we learn, that the Egyptian flax and the cloth woven from it were shipped in great quantities to all the ports of the Mediterranean[471].

[471] “Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt, and _linen yarn_” (טקוח): 1 Kings x. 28. 2 Chron. i. 16.

In connection with these statements the reader is referred to what has already been advanced (See Part Second, Chap. I.) on the use of wool for clothing by the Egyptians; and it may be also observed, that when we find it stated by ancient authors, that the priests wore linen only, the term ought not to be so strictly understood as to exclude the use of cotton, which would probably be considered equally pure and equally adapted for sacred purposes with linen, and which was brought in ancient times from India to Egypt; and the term _linum_ was undoubtedly often employed in so general a sense as to include cotton.

These testimonies of ancient authors are confirmed in a very remarkable manner by existing monuments. The paintings in the Grotto of El Kab represent among other scenes a field of corn and a crop of flax, the latter distinguished by its inferior height, by its round capsules, and by being pulled up by the roots instead of being reaped. The mode of binding the flax in bundles is also exhibited, and the separation of the “bolls,” or capsules, containing the lin-seed, from the stalk, by the use of a comb, or “ripple.” (_See Description de l’Egypte: Antiquités; Planches, tome_ i. _pl._ 68. _and the Plates to Hamilton’s Ægyptiaca_, xxiii.)

In Plate VI. is inserted so much of the painting as relates to our present subject. Five persons are employed in plucking up the flax by the roots, viz., four men and one woman. The woman wears a shift reaching to her ancles, but _transparent_[472]. The four men wear shirts which reach to their knees, and are not transparent. Another man binds the flax into sheaves: a sixth carries it to a distance: and a seventh separates the seed from the stem by means of a four-toothed ripple. The back of the ripple rests on the ground; its teeth being raised to the proper elevation by a prop, as shown in the drawing. The man sets his foot upon the back to keep the instrument firm, and, taking hold of a bunch of flax near the root, draws it through the comb. This method is now employed in Europe. At the left-hand corner of the Plate lies a bundle of flax stript of its capsules, and underneath the ripple is the heap of seed which has been separated from the stem.

[472] This circumstance is adapted to illustrate the mention of “transparent garments” in Isaiah iii. 23. Lowth’s Translation.

Evidence equally decisive is presented in the innumerable mummies, the fabrication of successive ages through a period of more than two thousand years, which are found in the catacombs of Egypt. It is indeed disputed, whether the cloth in which they are enveloped is linen or cotton.

It was believed to be linen by all writers previous to Rouelle. More especially, this opinion was advanced by the learned traveller and antiquary, Professor John Greaves, in his Pyramidographia, published A. D. 1646. He speaks of the “linen shroud” of a mummy, which he opened, and he says, “The ribbands” (_or fillets_) “by what I observed, were of linen, which was the habit also of the Egyptian priests.” He adds, “of these ribbands I have seen some so _strong_ and _perfect_ as if they had been made but yesterday.”

Rouelle’s dissertation on Mummies is published in the _Mémoires de l’Académie R. des Sciences_ for the year 1750. He there asserts (_p._ 150), that the cloth of every mummy which he had an opportunity of examining, even that of embalmed birds, was cotton.

Dr. Hadley, however, who wrote a few years after Rouelle (_Phil. Transactions for 1764, vol. 54._), seems to adhere to the old opinion. He calls the cloth of the mummy, which he examined, “linen.” He says, it was in fillets of different breadths, but the greater part 1½ inches broad. “They were torn longitudinally; those few that had a selvage, having it on one side only.”

But the opinion of Rouelle received a strong support from Dr. John Reinhold Forster, to whom it appeared at first almost incredible, although he afterwards supported it in the most decided manner. He determined to take the first opportunity of settling the question by the inspection of mummies, and examined those in the British Museum, accompanied by Dr. Solander. Both of these learned and acute inquirers were convinced, that the cloth was cotton, deriving this opinion from the inspection of all those specimens, which were sufficiently free from gum, paint, and resins, to enable them to judge[473]. Larcher informs us, that he remarked the same thing in these mummies in 1752, when he was accompanied by Dr. Maty[474]. It is to be observed, however, that neither Larcher, Rouelle, nor Forster mentions the criterion which he employed to distinguish linen from cotton. They probably formed their opinion only from its apparent softness, its want of lustre, or some other quality, which might belong to linen no less than to cotton, and which therefore could be no certain mark of distinction.

[473] Forster, De Bysso Antiquorum, London 1776, p. 70, 71.

[474] Herodote, par Larcher. Ed. 2nde, Par. 1802, livre ii. p. 357.

The opinion of Larcher, Rouelle, and Forster appears to have been generally adopted. In particular we find it embraced by Blumenbach, who in the Philosophical Transactions for 1794 speaks of the “cotton bandages” of two of the small mummies, which he opened in London[475]. In his _Beiträge (i. e. Contributions to Natural History, 2nd part, p. 73, Göttingen_, 1811) he says, he is more firmly convinced than ever, that the cloth is universally cotton. He assigns also his reasons in the following terms. “I ground this my conviction far less on my own views than on the assurance of such persons as I have questioned on the subject, and whose judgment in this matter I deem incomparably superior to my own or to that of any other scholar, namely, of ladies, dealers in cotton and linen cloth, weavers and the like.” He also refers to the cultivation of cotton in Egypt, which he assumes probably on the authority of Forster; and to the fable of Isis enveloping in “cotton” cloth the collected limbs of her husband Osiris, who had been torn in pieces by Typhon. The latter arguments are founded on the supposition, that the ancient term _Byssus_ meant cotton, and not linen. But the question as to its meaning must in part be decided, as we shall see hereafter, by previously settling the present question as to the materials of the mummy cloth. The opinion of ladies, tradesmen, and manufacturers, though it may be better than that of the most learned man, if derived from mere touch and inspection, is quite insufficient to decide the question. If those whom Blumenbach consulted thought that the cloth was always cotton, many others of equal experience and discernment have given an opposite judgment; and the fact is, that linen cloth, which has been long worn and often washed, as is the case with a great proportion of the mummy cloth, and which is either ragged or loose in its texture, cannot be distinguished from cotton by the unassisted use of the external senses.

[475] On the authority of this paper the mummy-cloth is supposed to be cotton by Heeren, Ideen, i. 1. p. 128.

Relying, however, on the same evidence of ocular inspection, another distinguished author, who travelled in Egypt and published his remarks about the same time, says, “As to the circumstance of cotton cloths having been exclusively used in the above process, an inspection of the mummies is sufficient evidence of the fact[476].”

[476] Ægyptiaca, by William Hamilton, Esq. F. R. S. London, 1809. p. 320.

M. Jomard, one of the authors of the great French work on Egypt, published about 1811, paid great attention to this subject. He concluded, that both linen and cotton were employed in the bandages of mummies, grounding his opinion partly on their appearance and touch, and partly on the testimony of Herodotus, whom he misinterpreted in the manner, which will hereafter be mentioned[477].

[477] Description de l’Egypte. Mémoires.--Sur les Hypogées, p. 35.

Another of these authors, M. Costaz, who contributed the memoir on the grotto of El Kab, asserts that the mummy cloth is found on examination to be cotton[478].

[478] Ibid. tom. i. p. 60.

An important paper on the same subject appeared in the Philosophical Transactions for 1825. In this Dr. A. B. Granville describes a mummy, which he opened. He dwells more particularly on the circumstances, which have reference to anatomical and surgical considerations, and expresses very strongly his admiration of the skill and neatness employed in folding the cloth, so as to present an example of every kind of bandage used by modern surgeons, and to exhibit it in the most perfect manner.

The passages which are connected with the present inquiry, will be quoted at length. Dr. Granville observes (_p. 272._),

The principal rollers appear to be made of a very compact, yet elastic linen, some of them from four to five yards in length, without any stitch or seam in any part of them. There were also some large square pieces thrown around the head, thorax, and abdomen, of a less elastic texture. These pieces were found to alternate with the complete swathing of the whole body. They occurred four distinct times; while the bandaging, with rollers and other fasciæ, was repeated, at least, twenty times. The numerous bandages, by which the mummy was thus enveloped, were themselves wholly covered by a roller 3½ inches wide and 11 yards long, which after making a few turns around both feet, ascended in graceful spirals to the head, whence descending again as far as the breast, it was fixed there. The termination of this outer roller is remarkable for the loose threads hanging from it in the shape of a fringe and for certain traces of characters imprinted on it similar to those described and delineated by Jomard in the _Description de l’Egypte_. One or two of these characters have corroded the linen, leaving the perforated traces of their form.

Dr. Granville gives a fac-simile of these characters, and in the same Plate he represents the exact appearance of the external rolls of cloth on the mummy. He then says (_p._ 274.),

I have satisfied myself, that both cotton and linen have been employed in the preparation of our mummy, although Herodotus mentions only cotton (_byssus_) as the material used for the purpose. Most mummies have been described as wholly enveloped in linen cloth, and some persons are disposed to doubt the existence of cotton cloth in any, not excepting in the one now under consideration.

But with respect to the last point, a simple experiment has, I think, set the question at rest. If the surface of old linen, and of old cotton cloth be rubbed briskly and for some minutes with a rounded piece of glass or ivory, after being washed and freed from all extraneous matter, the former will be found to have acquired considerable lustre; while the latter will present no other difference than that of having the threads flattened by the operation. By means of this test I selected several pieces of cotton cloth from among the many bandages of our mummy, which I submitted to the inspection of an experienced manufacturer, who declared them to be of that material.

Besides the appeal to the senses of “an experienced manufacturer,” Dr. Granville here proposes a new test, that of rubbing in the manner described. But, although cotton cloth in all circumstances has less lustre than linen, still this cannot be considered a satisfactory criterion.

The ingenious John Howell of Edinburgh[479] paid some attention to this question, having a few years since obtained and opened a valuable mummy. He and the friends, whom he consulted, and who were _weavers_ and other persons of _practical_ experience, most of them thought that the cloth was altogether linen: some however thought that certain specimens of it were cotton.

[479] Author of an Essay on the War Galleys of the Ancients, Edinburgh 1826, 8vo.

This curious and important question was at length decisively settled by means of microscopic observations instituted by James Thomson, Esq. F. R. S. of Clitheroe, one of the most observant and experienced cotton-manufacturers in Great Britain. He obtained about 400 specimens of mummy cloth, and employed Mr. Bauer of Kew to examine them with his microscopes. By the same method the structure and appearance of the ultimate fibres of modern cotton and flax were ascertained; and were found to be so distinct that there was no difficulty in deciding upon the ancient specimens, and it was also found that they were universally linen. About twelve years after Mr. Thomson had commenced his researches he published the results of them in the Philosophical Magazine[480], and he has accompanied them with a Plate exhibiting the obvious difference between the two classes of objects. The ultimate fibre of cotton is a transparent tube without joints, flattened so that its inward surfaces are in contact along its axis, and also twisted spirally round its axis (See A. Plate VI.): that of flax is a transparent tube jointed like a cane, and not flattened nor spirally twisted (See B. Plate VI.). To show the difference two specimens of the fibres of cotton, and two of the fibres of mummy cloth are exhibited, all of the specimens being one hundredth of an inch long, and magnified 400 times in each dimension. Any person, even with a microscope of moderate power, may discern the difference between the two kinds of fibres, though not so minutely and exactly as in the figures of Mr. Bauer.

[480] Third Series, vol. v. No. 29, November 1834.

The difference, here pointed out, will explain why linen has greater lustre than cotton: it is no doubt because in linen the lucid surfaces are much larger. The same circumstance may also explain the different effect of linen and cotton upon the health and feelings of those who wear them (See Part Third, Chap. I.). Every linen thread presents only the sides of cylinders: that of cotton, on the other hand, is surrounded by an innumerable multitude of exceedingly minute edges.

Mr. Pettigrew, in his “History of Egyptian Mummies” (_London_ 1834, _p._ 95.), expresses the opinion that the bandages are principally of cotton, though occasionally of linen. He has since arrived at the conclusion that they are all of linen: and his opinion appears to be established on the following evidence, which he gives in a note to the above mentioned work (_p._ 91.).

Dr. Ure has been so good as to make known to me that which I conceive to be the most satisfactory test of the absolute nature of flax and cotton, and in the course of his microscopic researches on the structure of textile fibres he has succeeded in determining their distinctive characters. From a most precise and accurate examination of these substances he has been able to draw the following statement:--The filaments of flax have a glassy lustre when viewed by day-light in a good microscope, and a cylindrical form, which is very rarely flattened. Their diameter is about the two-thousandth part of an inch. They break transversely with a smooth surface, like a tube of glass cut with a file. A line of light distinguishes their axis, with a deep shading on one side only, or on both sides, according to the direction in which the incident rays fall on the filaments.

The filaments of cotton are almost never true cylinders, but are more or less flattened and tortuous; so that when viewed under the microscope they appear in one part like a riband from the one-thousandth to the twelve-hundredth part of an inch broad, and in another like a sharp edge or narrow line. They have a pearly translucency in the middle space, with a dark narrow border at each side, like a hem. When broken across, the fracture is fibrous or pointed. Mummy cloth, tried by these criteria in the microscope, appears to be composed both in its warp and woof-yarns of flax, and not of cotton. A great variety of the swathing fillets have been examined with an excellent achromatic microscope, and they have all evinced the absence of cotton filaments.

Mr. Wilkinson considers the observations of Dr. Ure, and Mr. Bauer as decisive of the question[481].

[481] Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, London 1837, vol. iii. p. 115.

With regard to the evidence from mummies it should be further remarked, that, as they are partly wrapped in old linen (shirts, napkins, and other articles of clothing and domestic furniture being found with the long fillets and the entire webs), they prove the general application of linen in Egypt to all the purposes of ordinary life.

Even to the present day flax continues to be a most important article of cultivation and trade in Egypt[482]. The climate and soil are so favorable, that it there grows to a height, which it never reaches in Europe. It must no doubt, become coarser in proportion to its size, and this circumstance may account for the use of it in ancient times for all those purposes, for which we employ hemp, as for making nets, ropes, and sail-cloth. The fine linen of the ancient Egyptians must have been made from flax of lower growth and with thinner stems; and the mummies testify, that they made cloth of the finest as well as of the coarsest texture.

[482] Browne’s Travels in Africa, p. 83.

The following remark of Hasselquist respecting the _soft_ and _loose_ texture of the linen made in Egypt in his time agrees remarkably with the appearance of that found in mummies. “The Egyptian linen is not so thick,” says he, “as the European, being softer and of a looser texture; for which reason it lasts longer and does not wear out so soon as ours, which frequently wears out the faster on account of its stiffness.” He also observes, “The common people in Egypt are clothed in linen only, dyed blue with _indigo_; but those of better fortune have a black cloak over their linen shirt.”

The coarse linen of the Ancient Egyptians was called Φώσων. It was made of thick flax, and was used for towels (σουδάρια, _Julius Pollux_, vii. _c._ 16.), and for sails (Φώσσωνας, _Lycophron_, _v._ 26.)[483]. Φώσων may be translated _canvass_, or sail-cloth.

[483] Jablonski Glossarium Vocum Ægyptiarum, in Valpy’s edition of Steph. Thesaur. tom. i. p. CCXCV.

Fine linen, on the other hand, was called Ὀθόνη. This term, as well as the preceding, was in all probability an Egyptian word, adopted by the Greeks to denote the commodity, to which the Egyptians themselves applied it. It seems to correspond, as Salmasius[484], Celsius[485], Forster[486], and Jablonski[487] have observed, to the אטון מצריס “Fine linen of Egypt,” in Proverbs vii. 16. For אטון, put into Greek letters and with Greek terminations, becomes ὀθόνη and ὀθόνιον. Hesychius states, no doubt correctly, that ὀθόνη was applied by the Greeks to any fine and thin cloth, though not of linen[488]. But this was in later times and by a general and secondary application of the term.

[484] Salmasius in Achill. Tat. l. viii. c. 13, ὀθόνης χιτών.

[485] Celsii Hierobotanicon, t. ii. p. 90.

[486] Forster, De Bysso, p. 74.

[487] Ubi supra, p. CCXVII.

[488] The ancient Scholia (published by Mai and Butmann) on Od. η. 107, state that ὀθόναι were made both of flax and of wool. The silks of India are called Ὀθόναι σηρικὰ.

It appears also that in later times ὀθόνη was not restricted to fine linen. It is used for _a sail_ by Achilles Tatius in describing a storm (l. iii.), and by the Scholiast on Homer, _Il._ σ.

Agreeably to the preceding remarks, the ὀθόναι mentioned in the two passages of the Iliad may be supposed to have been procured from Egypt. Helen, when she goes to meet the senators of Ilium at the Scæan Gate, wraps herself in a white sheet of fine linen (Il. γ. 141.). The women, dancing on the shield of Achilles (Il. σ. 595.), wear _thin sheets_. These thin sheets must be supposed to have been worn as shawls, or girt about the bodies of the dancers. Helen would wear hers so as to veil her whole person agreeably to the representation of the lady, whom Paulus Silentiarius addresses in the following line, written evidently with Homer’s Helen before his mind:

You conceal your flowing locks with a snow-white sheet.--_Brunck_, _Analecta_, _vol._ iii. _p._ 81.

Perhaps even the sheets, spread for Phœnix to lie upon in the tent of Achilles, and for Ulysses on his return to Ithica from the country of the Phæacians[489], though not called by the Egyptian name, should be supposed to have been made in Egypt. In the time of Homer (900 B. C.) the use of linen cloth was certainly rare among the Greeks; the manufacture of it was perhaps as yet unknown to them.

[489] Il. ι. 657. Od. ν. 73. 118.

The term Σινδών (_Sindon_), was used to denote linen cloth still more extensively than ὀθόνη, inasmuch as it occurs both in Greek and Latin authors[490]. According to Julius Pollux this also was a word of Egyptian origin, and Coptic scholars inform us that it is found in the modern _Shento_, which has the same signification[491].

[490] E. g. Martial.

[491] Jablonski, ubi supra, p. CCLXXIV.

Serapion was called Sindonites, because he always wore linen (Palladii _Hist. Lausiaca_, p. 172). He was an Egyptian, and retained the custom of his native country.

Although Σινδών originally denoted linen, we find it applied, like Ὀθόνη, to cotton cloth likewise; and although both of these terms probably denoted at first those linen cloths only, and especially the finer kinds of them, which were made in Egypt, yet as the manufacture of linen extends itself into other countries, and the exports of India were added to those of Egypt, all varieties either of linen or cotton cloth, wherever woven, were designated by the Egyptian names Ὀθόνη and Σινδών.

Another term, which is probably of Egyptian origin, and therefore requires explanation here, is the term Βύσσος or Byssus. Vossius (_Etymol._ L. _Lat._ v. _Byssus_) thinks it was, as Pollux and Isidore assert, a fine, white, soft flax, and that the cloth made from it was like the modern cambric: “Similis fuisse videtur lino isti, quod vulgo _Cameracense_ appellamus.” Celsius, in his Hierobotanicon (_vol._ ii. _p._ 173.), gives the same explanation. This was indeed the general opinion of learned men, until J. R. Forster advanced the position, that _Byssus was cotton_. A careful examination of the question confirms the correctness of the old opinions, and for the following reasons.

I. The earliest author, who uses the term, is Æschylus. He represents Antigone wearing a shawl or sheet of fine flax[492]. In the Bacchæ of Euripides (_l._ 776.) the same garment, which was distinctive of the female sex, is introduced under the same denomination. We cannot suppose, that dramatic writers would mention in plays addressed to a general audience clothing of any material with which they were not familiarly acquainted. But the Greeks in the time of Æschylus and Euripides knew little or nothing of cotton. They had, however, been long supplied with fine linen from Egypt and Phœnice; and the βύσσινον πέπλωμα of Antigone is the same article of female attire with the ἀργενναὶ ὀθόναι of Helen, described by Homer. Indeed Æschylus himself in two other passages calls the same garment linen. In the Coephoræ (_l._ 25, 26.) the expressions, Λινόφθοροι δ’ ὑφασμάτων λακίδες and Πρόστερνοι στολμοὶ πέπλων, describe the rents, expressive of sorrow, which were made in the linen veil or shawl (πέπλος) of an Oriental woman. In the Supplices (_l._ 120.) the leader of the chorus says, she often tears her linen, or her _Sidonian veil_.

[492] Septem contra Thebas, l. 1041. See also Persæ, l. 129.

II. The next author in point of time, and one of the first in point of importance, is Herodotus. In his account of the mode of making mummies, he says (_l._ ii. _c._ 86.) the embalmed body was enveloped in cotton. But the fillets or bandages of the mummies are proved by microscopic observations to be universally linen; at least all the specimens have been found to be linen, which have been submitted to this, the only decisive test.

III. Herodotus also states (vii. 181.), that a man, wounded in an engagement, had his torn limbs bound σινδόνος βυσσίνης τελαμῶσι. Now, supposing that the persons concerned had their choice between linen and cotton, there can be no doubt that they would choose linen as most suitable for such a purpose. Cotton, when applied to wounds, irritates them. Julius Pollux mentions (_l._ iv. _c._ 20. 181.; _l._ vii. _c._ 16. _and_ 25. 72.) these bandages as used in surgery. The same fillets, which were used to swathe dead bodies, were also adapted for surgical purposes. Hence a Greek Epigram (_Brunck_, _An._ iii. 169.) represents a surgeon and an undertaker AS LEAGUING TO ASSIST EACH OTHER IN BUSINESS. The undertaker supplies the surgeon with bandages stolen from the dead bodies, and the surgeon in return sends his patients to the undertaker!

IV. Diodorus Siculus (_l._ i. § 85. _tom._ i. _p._ 96.) records a tradition, that Isis put the limbs of Osiris into a wooden cow, covered with Byssina. No reason can be imagined, why cotton should have been used for such a purpose; whereas the use of fine linen to cover the hallowed remains was in perfect accordance with all the ideas and practices of the Egyptians.

V. Plutarch, in his Treatise de Iside et Osiride (_Opp._ _ed. Stephani_, 1572, _vol._ iv. _p._ 653.) says, that the priests enveloped the gilded bull, which represented Osiris, in a black sheet of Byssus. Now nothing can appear more probable, than that the Egyptians would employ for this purpose the same kind of cloth, which they always applied to sacred uses; and in addition to all the other evidence before referred to, we find Plutarch in this same treatise expressly mentioning the linen garments of the priesthood, and stating, that the priests were entombed in them after death, a fact verified at the present day by the examination of the bodies of priests found in the catacombs.

VI. The magnificent ship, constructed for Ptolemy Philopator, which is described at length in Athenæus, had a sail of the fine linen of Egypt[493]. It is not probable, that in a vessel, every part of which was made of the best and most suitable materials, the sail would be of cotton. Moreover Hermippus describes Egypt as affording the chief supply of sails for all parts of the world[494]: and Ezekiel represents the Tyrians as obtaining cloth from Egypt for the sails and pendants of their ships[495].

[493] Deipnos. l. v. p. 206 C. ed. Casaubon.

[494] Apud. Athenæum, Deipnos. l. i. p. 27 F.

[495] Ez. xxvii. 7. שש ברקמה ממצרים.

VII. It is recorded in the Rosetta Inscription (_l._ 17, 18.), that Ptolemy Epiphanes remitted two parts of the fine linen cloths, which were manufactured in the temples for the king’s palace; and (_l._ 29.) that he also remitted a tax on those, which were not made for the king’s palace. Thus in an original and contemporary monument we read, that Ὀθόνια βύσσινα were at a particular time manufactured in Egypt. But we have no reason to believe, that cotton was then manufactured in Egypt at all, whereas linen cloth was made in immense quantities.

VIII. Philo, who lived at Alexandria, and could not be ignorant upon the subject, plainly uses Βύσσος to mean flax. He says, the Jewish High-Priest wore a linen garment, made of the purest _Byssus_, which was a symbol of firmness, incorruption, and of the clearest splendor, since _fine linen_ is most difficult to tear, is made of nothing mortal, and becomes brighter and more resembling light, the more it is cleansed by washing[496].

[496] De Somniis, vol. i. p. 653. Mangey.

Here we may notice the tenacity of the cloth found in Egyptian mummies. A great part of it is quite rotten; and its tender and fragile state is to be accounted for, not only from its great antiquity and exposure to moisture, but from the circumstance, that much of it was old and worn, when first applied to the purpose of swathing dead bodies. Nevertheless pieces are found of great strength and durability.

Hans Jac. Amman, who visited the catacombs of Sakara in 1613, found the bandages so strong, that he was obliged to cut them with scissors[497]. Professor Greaves[498] and Lord Sandwich found them as firm _as if they were just taken from the loom_. Abdollatiph, who visited Egypt A. D. 1200, mentions that the Arabs employed the mummy cloth to make garments[499]. Much more recently the same practice has been attested as coming under his observation by Seetzen[500]. Caillaud discovered in the mummy, which he opened, several _napkins_ in such a state of preservation, that he took a fancy to use one. He had it washed eight times without any perceptible injury. “With a sort of veneration,” says he, “I unfolded every day this venerable linen, which had been woven more than 1700 years.” (_Voyage à Meroe et au Fleuve Blanc._)

[497] Blumenbach’s Beiträge, Th. 2. p. 74.

[498] Pyramidographia.

[499] P. 221 of the German translation; p. 198 of Silvestre de Lacy’s. See App. A.

[500] See his letter to Von Hammer in the Fundgruben des Orients, 1 St. p. 72. as quoted by Blumenbach, l. c.

IX. According to Josephus the Jewish priests wore drawers of spun flax, and over the drawers a shirt. He calls a garment made of Βύσσος a _linen_ garment. It had _flowers woven into it, which were of three different substances_[501]. He soon after mentions the same materials _as used for making the curtains of the tabernacle_. In all these instances the figures or ornaments _were of splendid colors upon a ground of white linen_. We have no reason to believe, that either the Egyptians or the Israelites in the time of Moses knew anything of cotton: so that, if Josephus gives a true account, Βύσσος must have denoted a kind of flax.

[501] Ant. Jud. iii. 7. 1, 2. p. 112. ed. Hudson.

The shirt of the High Priest of the Jews was probably like that worn in the worship of Isis, which was of Byssus, _but adorned with flowers_, “Byssina, sed floridè depicta.” Apuleius, Met. l. xi.

X. Jerome on Ezekiel xxvii. says, “Byssus grows principally in Egypt” (_Byssus in Ægypto quàm maximè nascitur_). Of the celebrity of the Egyptian flax we have the most abundant proofs; but, if by _Byssus_ Jerome meant cotton, he here committed a strange mistake; for, supposing cotton to have grown at all in Egypt, it certainly grew far more abundantly in other countries, and of this fact he could scarcely be ignorant.

XI. Martianus Capella plainly distinguishes between that substance and _Byssus_[502]. He seems to have considered cotton as an Indian, Byssus as an Egyptian product. He certainly supposed, that they were not the same thing.

[502] Etym. L. Lat. v. Byssus.

XII. Isidorus Hispalensis expressly states, that _Byssus_ was a kind of flax, very white and soft.

Byssus genus est quoddam lini nimium candidi et mollissimi, quod Græci papatem vocant.--_Orig. l._ xix. 27.

Byssina (vestis) candida, confecta ex quodam genere lini grossioris Sunt et qui genus quoddam lini byssum esse existiment.--_Ibid. c._ 22.

Forster conjectures (_p._ 4.) that for _genus quoddam lini_ we should read _genus quoddam lanæ_, and conceives _tree_-wool (as Pollux and some others call it), i. e. cotton, to be intended. His conjecture seems probable. The remark of Isidore intimates, that in his time it had already been a matter of dispute whether Byssus was a kind of flax or something else.

XIII. Paulinus, Bishop of Nola, testifies to the great strength of the threads of Byssus.

Cloth made of Byssus indicates firm faith: For threads of Byssus, it is said, surpass E’en ropes of broom in firmness and in strength[503]. _Ad Cytherium in Max. Biblioth. Patrum_, _vol._ vi. _p._ 264.

[503] See Part First, Chapters XII. and XIII.

Vossius also quotes the authority of Jerome and Eucherius to prove the great tenacity of Byssus. But, if Byssus were cotton, it certainly would not have been celebrated on that account.

The arguments of Dr. J. R. Forster on the other side of the question will now be considered. See his _Liber Singularis de Bysso Antiquorum_, Lon. 1776, _p._ 11. 50.

I. His first argument is as follows. Julius Pollux says (_l._ vii. _c._ 17.), that Βύσσος was “a kind of flax among the Indians.” The Jewish rabbis indeed all explain the Hebrew שש (Shesh), which in the Septuagint is always translated Βύσσος, as signifying _flax_. But they use the term for flax in so loose and general a way, that they may very properly be supposed to have included cotton under it. In the same general sense we must suppose λίνον to be used by Julius Pollux; and it is clear, that he must have meant cotton, because cotton grows abundantly in India, whereas flax was never known to grow in India at all.

In proof of this last assertion Forster refers to Osbeck’s Journal, vol i. p. 383. He also appeals to a passage of Philostratus (_Vita Apollonii_, _l._ ii. _c._ 20. _p._ 70, 71.), which has been quoted in Part Third, p. 328., where that author certainly applies the term in question to the cotton of India.

An answer to this argument, so far as it depends on the testimony of Julius Pollux, was furnished by Olaus Celsius in his Hierobotanicon, published in 1747, a work which Forster had better have consulted, when he was writing a treatise expressly intended to ascertain the meaning of one of the botanical terms employed in the _Scriptures_. The learned and accurate Swede gives on good authority an emendation of the text of Pollux, which entirely destroys the argument founded upon it by Forster and those who agree with him. According to this reading Pollux only asserts that Βύσσος is a kind of flax, without adding that it grew among the Indians[504]. In a separate Appendix (E.), will be examined distinctly and fully the critical evidence for the correct state of the passages of Pollux, which it may be found necessary to cite. Pollux, in asserting that Byssus was a kind of flax, coincides with all the other witnesses who have been produced.

[504] Celsii Hierobot. vol. ii. p. 171.

Forster is also exceedingly incorrect in his mode of reasoning upon the passage of Pollux, supposing it to be accurate and genuine. He argues, that Pollux must have meant cotton by “_a kind of flax among the Indians_,” because real flax does not grow in India at all; “In Indiâ verò linum non erat, nec quidem nostrâ ætate linum reperitur in Indiâ, quod jam Osbeckius in Itinerario ostendit, p. 383. vol. i. edit. Anglicæ.” The “_English edition_” of Osbeck’s Voyage is a translation from the German by Forster himself. In the page referred to we find the following passage relative to flax, and no other:--“_Flax is so rare a commodity in the East_, that many have judged with great probability that the fine linen of the rich man, Luke xvi. 19, was no more than our common linen.” This sentence implies that flax grew in the East, though rarely. Whether it grew in India, Osbeck does not inform us. Dr. Wallich, who travelled in India, states that flax grows in India, and that he remembered having seen there a whole field blue with its flowers. It is cultivated principally for its seed, from which oil is extracted, the stalks being thrown aside as useless.

With respect to the passage from Philostratus, it is admitted, that he uses Βύσσος to denote cotton. Besides its proper and original sense, this word was occasionally used, as λίνον, ὀθόνη, _Sindon_, _Carbasus_, and many others were, in a looser and more general application. But the use of the term in this manner by a single writer, or even, if they could be produced, by several writers of so late an age as Philostratus, would be of little weight in opposition to the evidence, which has been brought forward to prove, that Βύσσος properly meant flax only.

II. Forster produces a passage from the Eliaca of Pausanias[505] from which he argues, that βύσσος was not flax, because Pausanias here distinguishes it from flax as well as from hemp.

[505] Paus. l. vi. cap. § 4.

But we know, that all plants undergo great changes by cultivation and in consequence of the varieties of soil and climate. What can be more striking than the innumerable tulips derived from the original yellow tulip of Turkey, or all the varieties of pinks and carnations from a single species? To make all the descriptions of cloth from the coarsest canvass or sail-cloth to the most beautiful lawn or cambric, there must have been, as there now are, great differences in the living plant. The best explanation therefore of the language of Pausanias seems to be, that he used λίνον to denote the common kind of flax, and βύσσος to signify a finer variety[506]. In another passage, where he speaks of the Elean Byssus, his language shows, that its peculiar excellence consisted both in its fineness and in its beautiful yellow color; for after expressing the admiration, to which this substance was entitled, as growing nowhere else in Greece, he says, that “in fineness it was not inferior to that of the Hebrews, but was not equally yellow[507].”

[506] Pausanias also distinguishes between λίνον and βύσσος in his account of the clothing of a reputed statue of Neptune, l. vi. c. 25. § 5. When flax is raised to be manufactured into cambric and fine lawn, twice as much seed is sown in the same space of ground. The plants then grow closer together; the stalks are more delicate and slender; and the fibres of each plant are finer in proportion.

[507] L. v. 5. § 2.

Others commend Byssus on account of its whiteness. See Philo. Apoc. xix. 14. Themistius (Orat. p. 57. ed. Paris, 1684. p. 68. ed. Dindorfii, Lips. 1832.) saw at Antioch “ancient letters wrapt _in white Byssus_.” These, he says, were brought from Susa and Ecbatana.

It may further be remarked in opposition to the idea, that βύσσος meant cotton in these passages, that there is not the slightest ground for supposing, that cotton was cultivated either in Elis or in any other part of Europe so early as the time of Pausanias, nor indeed until a comparatively recent age.

III. Forster (_p._ 69-71.) considers the testimony of Herodotus, that the embalmed bodies of the dead were wrapt in fillets of Byssus, as decisive in favor of his opinion, because those fillets are found on examination to be all cotton. It is presumed that the preceding testimony, proves that so far as they have been examined, in the only way which can settle the dispute, they are found universally to be linen.

Of Forster’s _celebrated_ work it may be observed in general, _that he rather from the very beginning assumes his point, than endeavors to prove it_. He continually speaks of it as _demonstrated_. Nevertheless the only arguments which can be found in his book, are those already stated. Little as these arguments amount to in opposition to the evidence, which has now been brought forward on the other side of the question, we find that the most learned authors since Forster’s time, and especially since the same opinion was embraced by Blumenbach, have generally been content to adopt it. But, although such eminent names as those of Porson[508], Dr. Thomas Young[509], Mr. Hamilton[510], Dr. T. M. Harris[511], Mr. Wellbeloved[512], E. H. Barker[513], Dr. A. Granville[514], Jomard[515], Wehrs[516], J. H. Voss[517], Heeren[518], Sprengel[519], Billerbeck[520], Gesenius[521], E. F. K. Rosenmuller[522], and Roselini[523], stand arrayed against the evidence now produced, i. e. to prove that βύσσος meant _flax_ and _not_ cotton, as those authors have supposed. Yet their evidence may be considered as going all for nothing, because they express not their own opinion formed by independent inquiry and investigation, but merely the opinion which they have adopted from Forster and Blumenbach.

[508] In his translation of the Rosetta Inscription, Clarke’s Greek Marbles, p. 63.

[509] Account of Discoveries in Hieroglyphic Literature, p. 101. 114.

[510] Ægyptiaca, p. 321.

[511] Natural History of the Bible, 2nd edition, p. 447.

[512] Translation of the Bible, Gen. xli. 42.

[513] Classical Recreations.

[514] As quoted at p. 364.

[515] Description des Hypogées, p. 35.

[516] Vom Papier, p. 201.

[517] Virgil’s Ländliche Gedichte, iii. p. 313.

[518] Ideen über die Politik, &c.

[519] Historia Rei Herbariæ, tom. i. c. i. p. 15.

[520] Flora Classica, p. 177.

[521] Thesaurus Philologico-Criticus, v. נוצ.

[522] Biblische Alterthumskunde, 4. l. p. 175.

[523] Monumenti dell’ Egitto. Mon. Civili, tomo. i. Pisa, 1834, capo. iv. § 6.

There is, however, no reason to doubt, that Forster is right in considering Βύσσος, or Byssus, as an Egyptian word with a Greek or Latin termination. In the Septuagint version it is always used as equivalent to the Hebrew שש (_Shesh_ or _Ses_), which according to the Hebrew Rabbis was a kind of flax, that grew in Egypt only and was of the finest quality[524]. Another term, used in the Pentateuch for linen cloth is בד (_bad_), which seems to be nearly the same as שש. The Egyptian term שש or בוץ (_buts_) is very seldom found in the Hebrew Scriptures, and not until the intercourse became frequent between the Jews and other oriental nations. But it is continually employed by the Arabic, Persic, and Chaldee Translators, as equivalent to the Hebrew terms שש and בד.

[524] Forster De Bysso, p. 5.

The distinction between Βύσσος and the Egyptian terms formerly explained is very obvious. Φώσων, Ὀθόνη, and Σινδών denoted linen cloth; Βύσσος the plant, from which it was made. Hence we so commonly find the adjective form Βύσσινος or Byssinus, i. e. made of Byssus, as in Σινδὼν βύσσινη, Ὀθόνη βύσσινη, Ὀθόνια βύσσινα, Στόλη βύσσινη, &c., and this is agreeable to the remark of the Patriarch Photius in his 192nd Epistle, Φυτὸν δὲ ἡ βύσσος, “Byssus is a plant.”

Herodotus (ii. 105.), pointing out resemblances between the Egyptians and the Colchians, says, they prepare their flax in the same manner, and in a manner which is practiced by no other nation. Xenophon directs, that nets should be made of flax from the Phasis, or from Carthage[525]. Pollux (_l._ v. _cap._ 4. § 26.) says, that the flax for the same purpose should be either from those countries, or from Egypt or Sardes. Callimachus (_Frag._ 265.) mentions the flax of Colchis under the name of “the Colchian halm.” Strabo (_l._ xi. § 17. _vol._ iv. _p._ 402. Tschuz.) testifies to the celebrity of Colchis for the growth and manufacture of flax, and says, that the linen of this country was exported to distant places.

[525] De Venat. ii. 4. Gratius Faliscus, in his directions on the same subject, recommends the flax from the rich moist plains about the river Cinyps, not very far from Carthage.

Optima Cinyphiæ, ne quid contere, paludes Lina dabunt.--_Cynegeticon_, 34, 35.

It seems still to maintain its ancient pre-eminence: Larcher refers to Chardin (_tom._ i. _p._ 115.), as saying, that the Prince of Mingrelia, a part of the ancient Colchis, paid in his time an annual tribute of linen to the Turks.

That flax was extensively cultivated in Babylonia appears from the testimony of Herodotus, who says (i. 195.), that the Babylonians wore a linen shirt reaching to the feet; over that a woollen shirt; and over that a white shawl. Strabo (_l._ xvi. _cap._ 1. _p._ 739. _ed. Casaub._) shows where these linen shirts were chiefly made; for he informs us that _Borsippa_, a city of Babylonia, sacred to Apollo and Diana, was a great place for the manufacture of linen.

The cultivation of flax in the region of the Euphrates may also be inferred from the use of the linen thorax, as attested by Xenophon (_Cyropedia_, vi. 4. 2.).

From Joshua ii. 6. we have evidence, that flax was cultivated in Palestine near the Jordan. Rahab concealed the two Hebrew spies (according to the common English version) “with the stalks of flax, which she had laid in order upon the roof.” According to the Septuagint translation, “the stalks of flax” were not merely “laid in order,” but “stacked.” Josephus says, _she was drying the bundles_. The Chaldee Paraphrast Onkelos also uses the expression מעוני כחנא, _bundles of flax_. Agreeably to these explanations, the history must be understood as implying, that the stalks of flax, tied into bundles, as represented in the painting at El Kab[526], were stacked, probably crossways, upon the flat roof of Ahab’s house, so as to allow the wind to blow through and dry them.

[526] See Plate VI. p. 358.

Other passages, referring to the use of flax for weaving in Palestine, are Levit. xiii. 47, 48. 52. 59, where linen garments are four times mentioned in opposition to woollen.

Proverbs xxi. 13. The virtuous woman, so admirably described in this chapter, “seeketh wool and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.” (See Part First, Chapter I. p. 13.). This proves, that flax was still an important article of cultivation in Palestine.

In 1 Chron. iv. 21. there is an allusion to a great establishment for dressing the fine flax, called _Butz_, or _Byssus_. It was conducted by certain families of the tribe of Judah[527].

[527] _Hebr._ משפחת בית־עבדת הבץ, i. e. “the families, or perhaps the partnerships, of the manufactory of Byssus;” _Vulg._ “Cognationes domus operantium byssum.”

Jeremiah (xiii. 1.) mentions אזור פשתים, “_a linen girdle_;” Lumbare lineum, _Vulgate_; περίζωμα λινοῦν LXX. זרז רכתן _Jonathan_; סוזרא רכהנא (sudarium) _Syriac_.

Hosea (ii. 5. 9.) mentions wool and flax as the two chief articles of clothing for the Jews in his time.

Ezekiel (xliv. 17, 18.), in his description of the temple which he saw in vision, says, the priests on entering the inner court would put on linen garments, including a turban and drawers of linen[528]. The use of wool is here prohibited and linen prescribed for those who were to be engaged in sacred services, on account of its superior cleanliness and purity. They were not to “_gird themselves with anything that causeth sweat_.” On returning to the outer court, so as to be in contact with the people, they were to put on the common dress, which was at least in part woollen.

[528] It is remarkable that the Chaldee Paraphrast Jonathan here uses בוצ (byssus) for the Hebrew פשתיס.

In the Old Testament we also find flax used _for making cords_, Judges xv. xvi.; for the _wicks of lamps_, Is. xiii. 17.; and for a _measuring line_, Ezek. xl. 3[529].

[529] The use of the cord of flax (_linea_) for measuring, &c. is the origin of the word _line_. “Linea genere suo appellata, quia ex lino fit.” Isidori Hisp. Etymol. l. xix. c. 18. De instrumentis ædificiorum.

According to Herodotus vii. 25, 34, 36, the Phœnicians furnished Xerxes with _ropes of flax_ for constructing his bridge, while the Egyptians supplied ropes of Papyrus, which were inferior to the others in strength.

Whilst פשת, derived probably from פשט, to strip or peel, is used for flax in every state, we find another term, נערת, used for tow. This term therefore corresponds to _Stuppa_ in Latin[530]; Etoupe in French; Στύπη, στυππίον or στιππίον in Greek; סרקהא, from סרק, to comb, in Syriac; _Werg_ in modern German.

[530] The origin of _Stuppa_, the Latin term, was from its use in _stopping_ chinks (_stopfer_, German). It was either of hemp or flax.

“Stuppa cannabi est sive lini. Hæc secundum antiquam orthographiam stuppa (stipa?) dicitur, quod ex eâ rimæ navium _stipentur_: unde et stipatores dicuntur, qui in vallibus eam componunt.” Isid. Hisp. Orig. xix. 27.

Eccles. xl. 4. represents poor persons as clothed in coarse linen, ὠμολίνον (Lino crudo, _Jerome_), meaning probably flax dressed and spun without having been steeped[531].

[531] See Bodæusa Stapel on Theophrasti Hist. Plant. l. viii. p. 944.

In Rev. xv. 6. the seven angels come out of the temple clothed “_in pure and white linen_.” This is to be explained by what has been already said of the use of linen for the temple service among the Egyptians and the Jews. On three other occasions mentioned in the New Testament, _viz._ the case of the young man, who had “a linen cloth cast about his naked body” (_Mark_ xiv. 51, 52.); the entombment of Christ (_Matt._ xxvii. 59. _Mark_ xv. 46. _Luke_ xxiii. 53. xxiv. 12. _John_ xix. 40. xx. 5, 6, 7.); and the case of the “sheet” let down in vision from heaven (_Acts_ x. 11. xi. 5.), the sacred writers employ the equivalent Egyptian terms, Σινδών, and Ὀθόνη or Ὀθόνιον.

The “Byssus of the Hebrews,” mentioned by Pausanias may have been so called, because it was imported into Greece by the Hebrews, not because it grew in Palestine, as many critics have concluded.

Herodotus (_l. c._) observes, that the Greeks called the Colchian flax Σαρδονικόν. The epithet must be understood as referring to Sardes, from the vicinity of which city flax was obtained according to the testimony of Julius Pollux (_l. c._). In another passage Herodotus remarks (v. 87.), that the linen shift worn by the Athenian women, was originally Carian. The Milesian Sindones, mentioned by Jonathan, the Chaldee Paraphrast, on Lam. ii. 20, were, no doubt, made of the flax of this country, although Forster (_De Bysso_, _p._ 92.), on account of the celebrity of the Milesian wool, supposes them to have been woollen. It is probable, that the Milesian net caps, worn by ladies, were made of linen thread.

Jerome, describing the change from an austere to a luxurious mode of life, mentions shirts from _Laodicea_. Some commentators have supposed linen shirts to be meant.

According to Julius Pollux (vii. _c._ 16.) the Athenians and Ionians wore a linen shirt reaching to the feet. But the use of it among the Athenians must have come in much later than among the Ionians, who would adopt the practice in consequence of the cultivation of flax in their own country as well as in their colonies on the Euxine Sea, and also in consequence of the general elegance and refinement of their manners. Indeed it appears probable, that the linen used by the Athenians was imported.

The only part of Greece, where flax is recorded to have been grown, was Elis. That it was produced in that country is affirmed by Pliny (_l._ xix. _c._ 4.), and by Pausanias in three passages already quoted.

When Colonel Leake was at Gastūni near the mouth of the Peneus in Elis, he made the following observations.

For flax (one of the chief things produced there) the land is once ploughed in the spring, and two or three times in the ensuing autumn, with a pair of oxen, when the seed is thrown in and covered with the plough. The plant does not require and hardly admits of weeding, as it grows very thick. When ripe, it is pulled up by the roots, and laid in bundles in the sun. It is then threshed to separate the seed. The bundles are laid in the river for five days, then dried in the sun, and pressed in a wooden machine. Contrary to its ancient reputation, the flax of Gastuni is not very fine. It is chiefly used in the neighboring islands by the peasants, who weave it into cloths for their own use[532].

[532] Journal of a Tour in the Morea, vol. i. p. 12.

In one of the Pseudo-Platonic Epistles (No. xiii. _p._ 363.) mention occurs of linen shifts for ladies, made in Sicily, which certainly implies nothing more than that linen was woven in Sicily. The material for making it may have been imported. In like manner the linen of Malta was exceedingly admired for its fineness and softness[533]; but the raw material was in all probability imported.

[533] Diod. Sic. l. v. 12. tom. i. p. 339. ed. Wesseling.

“Flax,” observes Professor Müller, “was grown and manufactured in Southern Etruria from ancient times, and thus the Tarquinii were enabled to furnish _sail-cloth for the fleet of Scipio_: yarn for making nets was produced on the banks of the Tiber, and fine linen for clothing in Falerii[534].” This account agrees remarkably with the views of Micali, and those historians who maintain the Egyptian origin of the Etrurians.

[534] Etrusker. vol. i. p. 235, 236.

Pliny (xix. 1, 2.) mentions various kinds of flax of superior excellence, which were produced in the plains of the Po and Ticino; in the country of the Peligni (in Picenum); and about Cumæ in Campania[535]. No flax, he says, was whiter or more like wool than that of the Peligni.

[535] Probably Cumæ is intended by Gratius Faliscus in the expression “Æoliæ de valle Sibyillæ.”--_Cyneg._ 35.

In the next chapter Pliny gives an account of the mode of preparing flax; plucking it up by the roots, tying it into bundles, drying it in the sun, steeping, drying again, beating it with a mallet on a stone, and lastly hackling it, or, as he says, “_combing it with iron hooks_.” This may be compared with the preceding extract from Colonel Leake’s Journal, and with chapter 97 of Bartholomæus Anglicus, De Proprietabus Rerum, which is perhaps partly copied from Pliny and treats of the manufacture of flax, steeping it in water, &c., and of its use for clothes, nets, sails, thread, and curtains.

In Spain there was a manufacture of linen at Emporium, which lay on the Mediterranean not far from the Pyrenees[536]. According to Pliny (_l. c._) remarkably beautiful flax was produced in Hispania Citerior near Tarraco. He ascribes its splendor to the virtues of the river-water flowing near Tarraco, in which the flax was steeped and prepared. Still further southward on the same coast we find Setabis, the modern Xativa, which is celebrated by various authors for the beauty of its linen, and especially for linen _sudaria_, or handkerchiefs:

Setabis et telas Arabum sprevisse superba Et Pelusiaco filum componere lino. _Silius Ital._ iii. 373.

Nam sudaria Setaba ex Hiberis Miserunt mihi muneri Fabullus Et Veranius.--_Catullus_, xx. 14.

Hispanæque alio spectantur Setabis usu. _Gratius Faliscus_, l. 41.

[536] Strabo, l. iii. cap. 4. vol. i. p. 428. ed. Siebenkees.

Pliny also mentions a kind of flax, called Zoelicum, from a place in Gallicia.

Strabo (iv. 2. 2. p. 41. ed. Sieb.) particularly mentions the linen manufacture of the Cadurci: and from them the Romans obtained the best _ticking_ for beds, which was on this account called Cadurcum.

Flax, as we are told by Pliny (xix. 1.), was _woven into sail-cloth in all parts of Gaul_; and, in some of the countries beyond the Rhine, the most beautiful apparel of the ladies was linen. Tacitus states that the women of Germany wore linen sheets over their other clothing[537].

[537] Fœminæ sæpiùs lineis amictibus velantur.--_Germania_, xvii. 5. The use of the same term for Flax in so many European languages, and especially in those of the North of Europe, is an evidence of the extensive use of this substance in very early times; e. g. Greek, Λίνον· Latin, Linum; Slavonian, Len; Lithuanian, Linnai; Lettish, Linni; German, Lein; French, Suio; Gothic, and Anglo-Saxon, Lin; Welsh, Llin.

Jerome mentions the shirts of the Atrebates as one of the luxuries of his day, and his notice of them seems to show, that they were conveyed as an article of merchandize even into Asia.

Whether the manufactures of the Atrebates were equal to the modern Cambric we cannot say; but, supposing the garments in question to have been linen, it is remarkable that this manufacture should have flourished in Artois for 1800 years[538].

[538] Erasmus makes the following remarks on the words “Atrebatum et Laodiceæ:”

“Apparet ex his regionibus candidissima ac subtilissima linea mitti solere. Nunc hujus laudis principatus, si tamen ea laus, penes meos Hollandos est. Quanquam et Atrebates in Belgis haud ita procul a nobis absunt.”