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

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.

Indutus was the putting on of the inner, amictus of the outer garment.

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].

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].

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.

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.

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.

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].”

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].

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].

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.),

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.),

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.

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.

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.).

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

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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].

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.

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].

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].

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.)

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.