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

THE SHEPHERD BOY.

The inquiry into the origin and propagation of sheep, no less than of the silk-worm, may be justly regarded as a subject of the deepest interest. For the management and use of these animals has, from the earliest dawn of human history, formed a striking feature in the condition of man. Of the materials employed by the ancients for making cloth, by far the most important was the wool of sheep. We are able to trace with great probability the process of sheep-breeding and of the use of wool for weaving. Among the bones of quadrupeds, found in ancient caves throughout Europe, we cannot find on consulting the works of Cuvier, Buckland, and De la Beche, that remains of sheep have ever been discovered. This fact affords some reason for presuming, that the sheep is not a native of Europe, but has been introduced there by man.

It appears to have been a general opinion among Zoologists, that the Argali, or Ovis Ammon of Linnæus, which inhabits in vast numbers the elevated regions of Central Asia, is the primitive stock of the whole race of domesticated sheep. Agreeably to this supposition we find, that from the earliest times the inhabitants of Tartary, Persia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, and the North of Arabia, have been addicted to pastoral employments. The tribes of wandering shepherds, which frequent those countries, are descended from progenitors, who led the same life thousands of years ago, and whose manners and habits are preserved to the present day with scarcely the slightest change.

As might be expected, we have little precise information respecting the Scythians, who inhabited the elevated plains of inner Asia. Some of their hordes are distinguished by Herodotus, Strabo, and others, under the name of Nomadic or pastoral Scythians; and that this denomination was understood to imply, that they tended sheep as well as larger cattle may be inferred from what Herodotus says of their use of felt (See Appendix B.). Strabo, moreover, says of a particular tribe of the Massagetæ, that they had “few sheep,” which implies that the rest were rich in flocks; and of another tribe he says, “They do not till the ground, but derive their sustenance from sheep and fish, after the manner of the Nomadic Scythians[227].” But a much more distinct account of the manners of this people is given us by Justin, who says, that they were accustomed to wander through uncultivated solitudes, always employed in tending herds and flocks (armenta et pecora). He, however, adds, that they were strangers to the use of woollen garments, being clothed in skins and furs[228]. Hence it appears, that they were too rude and ignorant to have acquired the arts of spinning and weaving.

If we may trust to the authority of Strabo, the Medes did not tend sheep; for he says of them, “They eat the flesh of wild animals; they do not bring up tame cattle[229].” Nevertheless, their southern neighbors, the Persians, with whom they were united under one government, had sheep in abundance. These animals are strikingly represented in the bas-reliefs of Persepolis. In one of them, which represents a long procession sculptured on the wall of a splendid staircase, two rams, attended by keepers, are accompanied in the same train by horses, asses, camels, and oxen[230]. Herodotus, in his account of the manners and institutions of the Persians (L. i. cap. 133.), mentions all these animals together in the following passage: “Of all days they are accustomed to observe most that on which each individual was born. On this day they set before their guests a more abundant feast than on any other. The wealthy provide an ox, a horse, a camel, and an ass, roasted whole in furnaces; and the poor provide the smaller cattle.” By “the smaller cattle,” this author always means sheep and goats.

The superior excellence of the rich plains of Mesopotamia for the pasture of sheep as well as oxen, is attested by Dionysius Periegetes[231], and his account illustrates in an interesting manner the history of Jacob as contained in the book of Genesis, the rapid multiplication of the flocks and herds showing how well the soil and climate were adapted to this pursuit, and how well the business of tending them was there understood from the earliest times. Seldom do we find in any ancient author so beautiful a picture as is presented to us, when Jacob arrives at Padan-aram, and sees the flocks of sheep and goats assembling from the neighboring pastures in the evening to be watered at the well. Rachel appears conducting the flock of her father Laban, which she tended, and Jacob rolls from the mouth of the well the stone, which was placed to preserve the water cool and fresh, and assists his relative and future bride in watering her sheep. (Gen. xxix. 1-10.) Also on Jacob’s departure his remonstrance with Laban presents to us an animated representation of the duties and difficulties of the shepherd’s life; “These twenty years have I been with thee; thy ewes and thy she-goats have not cast their young, and the rams of thy flock have I not eaten. That which was torn of beasts I brought not unto thee; I bare the loss of it: of my hand didst thou require it, whether stolen by day, or stolen by night. Thus I was; in the day the drought consumed me, and the frost by night; and my sleep departed from mine eyes.” (Gen. xxxi. 38-40.)

From Ezekiel we learn, that Damascus supplied the Tyrians with wool[232], and Jerome, who well knew the country, says in his comment on the passage, that this article was still produced there in his time (A. D. 378.)[233]. Aristotle, referring to the sheep of Syria, mentions a variety with tails, which were a cubit broad[234]; and Pliny in addition to this circumstance asserts generally the abundance of the Syrian wool[235]. Probably the part of Syria appropriated more especially to the breeding of sheep, was the eastern part, which bordered on Arabia, and was distinguished by the same natural features.

In no part of the ancient world does sheep-breeding appear to have been more cultivated than in that which we are now approaching. Here were the Moabites, among whom it was a royal occupation, and, as it appears, the chief source of the revenues of the sovereign: for it is said in 2 Kings iii. 4. “Mesha, king of Moab, was a sheep-master, and rendered unto the king of Israel an hundred thousand lambs and an hundred thousand rams with the wool.” Here on occasion of a war, which the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh, whose territory was to the east of Jordan, carried on against the Hagarites, they obtained as part of their booty 250,000 sheep. (I. Chron. v. 21.) Here was Idumæa, in a part of which Job is represented to have dwelt, being possessed of 7,000, and afterwards of 14,000 sheep (Job i. 3. xlii. 12.): and we have a beautiful allusion to the pastoral habits of the same country in the language of consolation employed by the prophet Micah (ii. 12.): “I will surely assemble, O Jacob, all of thee; I will surely gather the remnant of Israel; I will put them together as the sheep of Bosrah, as the flock in the midst of their fold: they shall make great noise by reason of the multitude of men.” Here also were the Midianites, whose flocks were so vast, that the sheep taken from them by Moses after his victory amounted to 675,000. (Num. xxxi. 32.) Jethro, the priest of Midian, was himself the owner of a numerous flock, tended by his seven daughters, whom Moses assisted in watering them, when the neighboring shepherds rudely attempted to drive them from the well. He afterwards married one of them, and was employed by the father as his shepherd; and, having occasion according to the practice of the country to conduct the flock from the plains to pasture upon the mountains of Horeb, he was thence called to undertake his extraordinary mission for the deliverance of his nation. (Exod. ii. 15-iii. 1.)

The Arabs appear from the earliest times to the present day to have bestowed no less attention upon sheep than upon horses. Isaiah also records the excellence of the sheep of Arabia in the following terms addressed by the Almighty to his people (Ch. lx. 7.): “All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto thee, the rams of Nebaioth shall minister unto thee: they shall come up with acceptance on mine altar, and I will glorify the house of my glory.” The habits of the Nebatæi, or Arabs of Nebaioth, are depicted as follows by Diodorus Siculus: “They live in the open air, and call a land their country, which is destitute of habitations, and has neither rivers nor copious fountains, such as could satisfy an army of invaders. Their law forbids them on pain of death either to sow corn, to plant fruit-trees, to use wine, or to build houses. They submit to this law, because they think, that those who enjoy such conveniences may for the sake of them be readily compelled by the powerful to do what they command. Some of them rear camels, and others sheep, which they pasture in the wilderness[236].”

Various ancient authors mention that extraordinary variety of sheep among the Arabs, the tail of which grew to so great a size as to require to be supported on a wooden carriage, which was dragged after the wearer[237].

We have no reason to believe, that the Phœnicians employed themselves in the breeding and pasture of sheep. The narrow strip of territory, which they occupied at the eastern extremity of the Mediterranean Sea, was in general too densely peopled to be adapted for this purpose. Their activity, intelligence, and enterprize were directed into other channels, and they supplied themselves from foreign countries with wool for their celebrated manufactures.

On the other hand, the Hebrews, who were the immediate neighbors of the Phœnicians, were altogether an agricultural and pastoral people. The history of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, presents to us beautiful images of the kind of life, which still continues with little variation among the Bedouins, or wandering Nomads of Arabia. Not only was David a shepherd boy; but, when he had ascended the throne, he had numerous herds and flocks superintended by distinct officers. “And over the herds that fed in Sharon was Shitrai the Sharonite: and over the herds that were in the valleys was Shaphat the son of Adlai. Over the camels also was Obil the Ishmaelite: and over the asses was Jehdeiah the Meronothite: and over the flocks was Jaziz the Hagarite. All these were the rulers of the substance which was king David’s.” (I. Chron. xxvii. 29-31.) The reader cannot fail to call to mind David’s frequent allusions in the Psalms to those employments, which were no less familiar to his own mind than to the rest of his countrymen, and which supplied to them the most touching comparisons for the expression of their deepest religious convictions. The passage “The Lord is my shepherd: I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for thou art with me; thy rod (or crook) and thy staff, they comfort me” (Psalm xxiii. 1, 2, 4.). “He shall feed (i. e. tend) his flock like a shepherd; he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young” (Is. xl. ii.). “The pastures are clothed with flocks,” an expression denoting the vast multitudes of sheep, which overspread the mountains and plains (Ps. lxv. 13.). “Be thou diligent,” says Solomon, “to know the state of thy flocks, and look well to thy herds. The lambs are for thy clothing, and the goats are the price of thy field; and thou shalt have goat’s milk enough for thy food, for the food of thy household, and for the maintenance of thy maidens” (Prov. xxvii. 23. 26, 27.). We would particularly refer the reader to the thirty-fourth chapter of Ezekiel, where the prophet, reprimanding the rulers of Israel under the character of shepherds, makes some allusion to every circumstance connected with the care of sheep and goats. Language very similar is employed by our Saviour in John x. where he speaks of himself as “the good shepherd.” The whole system and history of the sacrifices both before and after the giving of the Mosaic law, might be produced to prove the pastoral habits of this people from the earliest times. The districts of Bashan and Carmel, seem to have attained the highest reputation in respect to the breeding of sheep. Bashan, which lay to the east of the Jordan in the country adjoining that of the Hagarites and Moabites, already mentioned, and Carmel, the mountainous range near the Dead Sea in the south of Judea. In the latter district Nabal kept his flocks, and as he is said to have been “very great,” and we are at the same time informed that “he had 3000 sheep and 1000 goats” (I. Sam. xxv. 2.), these numbers afford us a precise idea of the wealth of a considerable proprietor in this respect. That the “rams of the breed of Bashan,” were particularly celebrated, we learn from Deut. xxxii. 14; and Ezekiel mentions with distinction (ch. xxxix. 18.) a sacrifice “of rams, of lambs, and of goats, of bullocks, all of them fatlings of Bashan.”

It is impossible to conceive a more striking difference in manners and institutions, than that which must have presented itself to the traveller in very ancient times, when on crossing the Isthmus of Suez he passed from the deserts of Arabia and Idumæa to the richly cultivated and populous plains of Egypt. According to the statement already quoted from an ancient historian the wandering tribes of Nabaioth were forbidden by a positive law to till the ground or to construct settled habitations, and they lived on the produce of their flocks, which they continually led from place to place in pursuit of pasture adapted to the season of the year. The Egyptians, on the contrary, appear to have been originally under a prohibition of exactly the opposite kind, since they cultivated the ground with care, excelled most other nations in all the arts of life, and produced the most splendid proofs of their architectural skill, but were not allowed to keep flocks of sheep and goats. That this was the case at the time, when Jacob took his family to sojourn in Egypt, is evident from their application to Pharaoh on arriving in the land of Goshen, which was on the eastern border of Egypt adjoining Palestine and Arabia, to be permitted to remain there on the ground, that from their youth they had been accustomed to tend flocks, whereas “every shepherd was an abomination to the Egyptians[238].”

It appears that the Nabatæan law was far more effectual towards the attainment of its object than the Egyptian. For, whereas the pastoral tribes of Arabia have retained their independence and their national peculiarities even to the present day; the Egyptians, on the other hand, became a prey to foreign invasion, and among other changes in their customs we have to notice the introduction of the management of sheep. Even as early as the time of Moses the practice had commenced; for in the account of the effects of the murrain in Exodus ix. 3, we find mention of sheep, and indeed it is remarkable, that the domestic animals there enumerated, viz. horses, asses, camels, oxen, and sheep, are exactly the same, which, as we have before shown, were bred by the ancient Persians[239]. Later historians afford distinct testimony to the same fact. Thus Diodorus Siculus says, that “upon the subsidence of the waters after the inundation of the Nile the flocks were admitted to pasture, and the produce of the soil was so abundant, that the sheep were not only shorn twice, but also brought forth young twice in the year.” Herodotus also plainly supposes, that sheep and goats were bred in Egypt, when he contrasts the inhabitants of the Theban Nome, who worshipped Ammon, with the inhabitants of the Mendesian Nome, who worshipped Mendes. The former, he says, “all abstain from sheep, and sacrifice goats;” the latter “abstain from goats, which they hold in veneration, and sacrifice sheep.” He, however, mentions that the Thebans slew a ram once a year on occasion of a particular ceremony, which he describes (ii. 42. 46.). The testimony of Strabo and Plutarch, though differing in some particulars from that of Herodotus, is to the same general effect. Aristotle (l. c.) mentions, that the sheep of Egypt were larger than those of Greece.

But, although these passages show, that sheep were bred in Egypt, we think it evident that their number was very limited. Egyptian wool cannot have been of the least importance as an article of commerce. What was produced must also have been consumed in the country. For, although the chief material for the clothing of the Egyptians was linen, and they were forbidden to be buried in woollen or to use it in the temples, yet Herodotus (ii. 81.) states, that on ordinary occasions they wore a garment of white wool over their linen shirt. They also used wool for embroidering. According to Pliny[240] the Egyptian wool was coarse and of a short staple. Tertullian records a saying of the Egyptians, that Mercury invented the spinning of wool in their country[241].

Strabo in an instructive manner contrasts the Ethiopians with the Egyptians. Having observed, that the boundary between the two nations was the smaller cataract above Syene and Elephantine, he says, that the Ethiopians led for the most part a pastoral life without resources, both on account of their intemperate climate and the poverty of their soil, and also because they were remote from the civilized world; whereas the Egyptians had always lived in a refined manner and under a regular government, settled in fixed habitations, and cultivating philosophy, agriculture, and the arts[242]. Thus do we find the nomad life recurring immediately to the south of Egypt. Strabo further states, that the Ethiopian sheep were small, and instead of being woolly were hairy like goats, on which account the people wore skins instead of woollen cloth[243]. That these sheep were held in some estimation by the Egyptians is, however, manifest from the fact, that in the splendid procession exhibited at Alexandria by Ptolemy Philadelphus, there were 130 sheep from Ethiopia, 300 from Arabia, and 20 from Eubœa [244]. Also, that the pastoral habits of the Ethiopians were known to the Romans may be inferred from the allusion, which Virgil makes to them in his Tenth Eclogue (l. 64-68.):

We find, that the people of Libya had attained to some distinction in the management of flocks. What Diodorus says of the Egyptian sheep is asserted by Aristotle of those of Libya, viz. that they produced young twice in the year[245]. That sheep-breeding had extended hither in very early times appears from a passage in the Odyssey, which, however, in consequence of the remoteness of the situation and the imperfect knowledge of geography in the time of the writer, is mixed with fable, inasmuch as it represents, that the ewes brought forth not only twice, but even three times in the year, and that the lambs were immediately provided with horns[246].

Pindar (Pyth. ix. 11.) distinguishes Libya by the epithet πολύμηλος, “abounding in flocks.” To the same district of Africa, Virgil alludes in the following passage of the Georgics, which is surpassed by few as a happy example of the art of the poet in describing the various modes of pastoral life.

It is to be observed, that, although the Libyan shepherd according to Virgil’s description led a migratory life, conducting his sheep from place to place in search of pasture, yet the scale, upon which he carried on his operations, was widely different from that which has always characterized the nomadic tribes of Asia. The poet represents the Libyan shepherd as a solitary wanderer, bearing with him all his arms and implements, just as a Roman soldier (l. 346.) carried his military accoutrements. On the other hand, as we have seen, the Syrian or Arabian shepherd goes in a kind of state, with camels and horses to carry his wife and children, his tents, and the rest of his equipage; and he is followed by thousands, instead of hundreds or perhaps scores, of sheep and goats.

Let us now pursue the progress of this employment in another direction, viz. towards the north-west, and across the Euxine Sea and the straits connected with it into Europe.

Near the eastern extremity of the Euxine Sea we meet with a very remarkable instance of the attention paid to the produce and manufacture of wool in a tribe called the Coraxi. Strabo alludes to the value of their fleeces in a passage which we shall produce in speaking of the wool of Spain, to which it more directly refers. At present we shall only consider the following evidence preserved by Joannes Tzetzes.

Hipponax, who is here cited by Tzetzes, was a satirical poet of Ephesus, and flourished about 540 B. C. In confirmation of his testimony it may be proved, that his countrymen and contemporaries had constant intercourse with a port in the vicinity of the Coraxi. We learn from Pliny (l. vi. cap. 5.)[249], that the Coraxi were situated near Dioscurias, which, though deserted in his time, had been formerly so illustrious that 300 nations, speaking different languages, resorted to it. As we learn from other authorities, Dioscurias was a colony of Miletus and one of its chief settlements. Miletus also in the time of Hipponax had risen to the summit of its prosperity, and was the greatest commercial city in the world next to Tyre and Carthage[250]. Its chief trade was towards the north and as far as the extremity of the Euxine Sea. Among the numerous Asiatic tribes, which were accustomed to bring their productions to Dioscurias and exchange them for Grecian merchandise, the Coraxi were, as we may conclude from the evidence now produced, a nation of superior enterprize and intelligence, who sent to the shores of the Ægean in the vessels of Miletus their fine wool, as well as the carpets and shawls, which they made from it.

If we had no more exact information than that which has been already cited, we might infer, that the Coraxi occupied part of the modern Circassia, a mountainous region admirably adapted to the breeding of sheep. The Circassians of the present day have numerous herds of cattle and vast flocks of sheep and goats. Their vallies are distinguished by beauty and fertility. A late traveller says, that from whatever country you enter Circassia, “you are at once agreeably impressed with the decided improvement in the appearance of the population, the agriculture, and the beauty of their flocks and herds[251].” With respect to Dioscurias, we are informed, that “the memory of its ancient name is still preserved in the present appellation of Iskouriah[252].” Sir John Chardin, who visited it and calls it Isgaour, commends its safety in summer as a road for ships, but says that it is a complete desert, where he could obtain no provisions, the traders who anchor there being obliged to construct temporary huts and booths of the boughs of trees for their accommodation, whilst awaiting the arrival of the natives of Mingrelia and Caucasus[253].

But, besides the general inference that the Coraxi occupied part of the modern Circassia, we are able to determine their abode with still greater precision, and even obtain some insight into their distinctive characters as a nation.

At the south-eastern extremity of Chirkess, or Circassia, on the northern declivity of Mount Elborus, and about the sources of the Kuban, the ancient Hypanis, we find a mountain clan, consisting of rather more than 250 families, which appears to retain not only the manners and habits, but even the very name of the Coraxi. Julius von Klaproth, to whom we are principally indebted for our knowledge of them, calls them the Caratshai[254]. From him we learn the following particulars respecting their appearance, manners, and employments. They are among the most beautiful of the inhabitants of Caucasus, and more like the Georgians than the wandering Tartars of the Steppe. They are well formed, and have fine features, which are set off by large black eyes and a white skin. Their language resembles that of the Nogay-Tartars. They live in very neat houses, built of pine. Their children are strictly and well educated; and in general it may be said of them, that they are the most cultivated nation in Caucasus, surpassing all their neighbors in refinement of manners. They are very industrious, and subsist chiefly by agriculture. Their soil is productive, and, besides various kinds of grain, yields abundance of grass for pasture. The country around them is covered with woods, which abound with wild animals, such as bears, wolves, wild goats, hares, and wild cats, whose skins are much prized, and martins. Their dress is chiefly made of woollen cloth, which they weave themselves from the produce of their flocks, and which is admired throughout the whole of Caucasus. They sell their cloth, called by them Shal[255], their felt for carpeting, and their furs, partly to the Nogay-Tartars and Circassians, from whom they purchase articles of metal, and partly at Souchom-Kalé, a Turkish fort on the Black Sea, which contains shops and ware-houses, and carries on a considerable trade with the Western Caucasus. They receive here in return goods of cotton and silk, tobacco and tobacco-pipes, needles, thimbles, and otter-skins. While the men are employed out of doors, the women stay at home, make gold and silver thread, and sew the clothes of their fathers and brothers.