A History of Inventions, Discoveries, and Origins, Volume II (of 2)

But however probable this may appear, I am inclined to suspect, that under βουνιὰς and napus our steckrüben are to be understood, as most of the old botanists have admitted; and that the roots of them were used for food, before the seeds were employed for making oil. The napus of the ancients had long thin roots, which were so small that they could be preserved without being cut into slices; on the other hand, the rapa had large conical roots, which could not be preserved till they were sliced. The napus, because the roots grew chiefly downwards, were sown thicker than the rapum. The napus was cultivated only for the use of man; but the rapum was raised in great abundance as fodder for cattle. Of the napus there were many known varieties, of different degrees of goodness, which, as is the case at present with steckrüben, were named from the place where they chiefly grew. When sown late in the season, they were injured by the earth-flea; to prevent which, the young plants were strewed over with soot. Both the napi and rapa were buried in the earth, where they were kept in a fresh state during the winter. The former, to prevent them from degenerating, required careful cultivation; and indeed there are few kitchen vegetables which so easily change their state, according to the nature of the soil, as the steckrüben.

But what opinion can be formed of the assertion, often repeated, that brassica napus, and rapum, or rapa, readily change into each other; consequently are only varieties or deviations of the same species[869 - Columella, ii. 10, 22–25; xi. 3, 60; xii. 54. – Plinius, xx. 4; and xix. 10 and 5. That I may not be too prolix, I shall leave the confusion which occurs in the works of the ancients untouched.]? I am not disposed to declare this assertion to be altogether false; though I will not vouch for the possibility of converting our Markish rapes into turnips or cabbage. I conjecture that in the oldest times, when these three plants were not so far separated from each other by intermediate species or degrees of degeneration, as they had a greater resemblance to each other, and were all nearer to the original species, such transitions were easier than they possibly could be at present.

The third species of cabbage in the Linnæan system, belonging to this place, is the Brassica rapa, or turnip, the roots of which, more or less conical, differ in figure, colour and taste[870 - See the figure of the Mayrübe in Kerner, tab. 553; of the Guckelrübe, tab. 516; and Mehler’s tab. vii. (or 37.)]. That these roots are the same as those called by the Romans rapa, and by the Greeks γογγύλη or γογγυλὶς, appears to be subject to no doubt, though at present we may have a greater number of varieties.

[The turnip was well-known to the Romans, and all that can be gathered on this subject from the writings of the ancients renders it probable that it occupied nearly the same place in Roman culture as it does in British husbandry at the present day. Columella[871 - De Re Rustica, lib. ii. cap. 10.] recommended that the growth of turnips should be abundant, because those which were not required for human food could be given with much advantage to cattle; and both he and Pliny concur in their testimony, that this produce was esteemed next to corn in utility and value. The best grew in the country of the Sabines, and were worth at Rome a sestertius, or 2d. each[872 - Hist. Nat. lib. xviii. c. 13; lib. xix. c. 5.].

It is stated that the Roman method of cultivation must have been superior to that of the moderns, since Pliny relates that some single roots weighed as much as forty pounds, a weight far surpassing any which has been obtained by the most skilful modern agriculturists. It is very probable that the garden culture of the turnip was introduced by the Romans into this country, and that, like some of the fruit trees which they had transplanted here, though neglected, it was never altogether lost. There is no doubt that this root was in cultivation in the sixteenth century. Whether revived by native industry, or introduced at that period by the Flemings, is a question differently answered by different writers. Towards the latter end of the sixteenth century it is mentioned by more than one writer. Cogan, in his Haven of Health, published in 1597, says, that “although many men love to eat turnips, yet do swine abhor them.” Gerarde, who published in the same year, and who had rather more rational views on the subject of plants, leads us to conclude that more than one variety was cultivated in the environs of London at that time. “The small turnips,” says he, “grown by a village near London, called Hackney, in a sandie ground, and brought to the crosse in Cheapside by the women of the village to be solde, are the best that I ever tasted.” Gerarde is silent concerning the field culture of turnips; neither is this mentioned by Parkinson, who wrote in 1629. We do not find any account of the root being grown in any part of the country until the close of the seventeenth century (loc. sup. citat.). Turnips sometimes attain a very large size in this country; Tull[873 - Tull’s Horse-Hoeing Husbandry.] speaks of some weighing as much as nineteen pounds, and of often meeting with others of sixteen pounds. One was dug up in Surrey, in July 1828, which weighed twenty-one pounds, and was one yard in circumference[874 - Gard. Magaz.]. Our more immediate ancestors appear to have applied the turnip to more extensive uses as an esculent than is done at present. It is stated, that in 1629 and 1630, when there was a dearth in England, very good, white, lasting and wholesome bread was made of boiled turnips, deprived of their moisture by pressure, and then kneaded with an equal quantity of wheaten flour. The same was had recourse to in Essex in 1693[875 - Lib. Entert. Knowledge, Vegetable Substances.].]

The question whether the Greeks and the Romans were acquainted with our carrots[876 - Kerner’s Œkonom. Pflanzen, tab. 319. – Mehler, tab. x. (or 40.)], seems to be attended with more difficulties than might be expected. Whoever wishes to answer it fully, and at the same time explain the information of the ancients, and examine the opinions of the botanists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (for the modern botanists give themselves very little trouble in regard to such researches), must enter into a disquisition of such length as might be agreeable perhaps to few readers. I shall however here state what I think I know, and however little it may be, it will perhaps afford some assistance to those who are desirous to illustrate the works of the ancient physicians and agriculturists.

Dioscorides, who, next to Theophrastus among the Greeks, possessed the greatest share of botanical knowledge, was certainly acquainted with our carrot, and gave it the name of staphylinos. For this plant, he says, like dill, bears umbellæ consisting of white flowers, which in the middle are of a purple red or almost saffron red colour. Our carrots, it is well known, have these characteristics, before the umbellæ, towards the time of their ripening, form themselves into a nidus. The plant meant by Dioscorides grew wild, but was reared in gardens, on account of its esculent root; and our carrots are certainly descended from plants which grew wild, though Miller, author of the Gardener’s Dictionary, could not succeed in rendering the small pungent roots eatable by culture.

We must believe Columella and Pliny, that the staphylinos of the Greeks was, in their time, called pastinaca; though they give no information from which it can be concluded that their pastinaca was our carrot. The former speaks of it as a plant useful to bees, which is the case also with our wild and cultivated carrots. Afterwards he tells us that it was cultivated like siser. Those therefore have erred who consider siser and pastinaca as the same plant, and believe it to be our liquorice.

That staphylinus, or patinaca, or our carrot, was by the Greeks called also daucus, is asserted by Pliny, as well as Galen; and in the Geoponica, daucon is named among the kitchen vegetables. But Dioscorides seems to make a difference between staphylinus and daucon, as he treats of them in different sections. He however says that daucon is like staphylinus, and has also a white umbella. Daucon perhaps may have signified a peculiar variety of carrot.

In the last place, that the pastinacæ, or carrots, were named also carotæ, is mentioned by Apicius. This word is derived perhaps from κάρτον, which in Athenæus denotes the large roots of the staphylinus, and also from κέρας, which occurs in Hesychius and Apuleius as a synonym of pastinaca, staphylinus, and daucion; but it is possible that all these words may have been corrupted by transcribers. The Germans and French however have thence formed the appellation carrottes. But κάρος, a plant which Galen[877 - De Aliment. Facult. ii. 67. Galen has ἡ καρὼ, not κάρος.] names along with the roots of the staphylinus and daucus, signified, undoubtedly, our caraway (Carum Carvi). Dioscorides says that the spicy aromatic seeds of the κάρος were used, and that the roots also were boiled and eaten like carrots. Pliny calls the plant careum. The Greeks and the Romans therefore were acquainted with our carrots; but in my opinion they were far less used in cookery and as fodder for cattle than they are at present, otherwise they must have more frequently occurred in the works of the ancients.

But whether, under the term pastinaca, the ancients did not sometimes understand our parsnip, I will not venture to determine. I can only assert, with some degree of probability, that the latter is by Dioscorides called elaphoboscon, a name which occurs also in Pliny. The former says expressly that this plant had umbellæ with yellow flowers, and large white sweet roots fit to be eaten. Now among our umbelliferous plants, besides dill, fennel and lovage, the parsnip is the only one which has yellow flowers; at any rate I know of no other with yellow flowers and esculent roots. If the parsnip had no other names among the Greeks and the Romans, it must have been very little used by them; for it is mentioned only by Dioscorides and Pliny. At present we know that it forms excellent fodder for black cattle, sheep and swine.

It needs however excite little wonder that it is so difficult to discover these plants in the works of the Greeks and the Romans. They all belong to one natural order, the species of which can with difficulty be distinguished by the most expert botanist. I mean to say, that all the umbelliferous plants are so like to each other, that they may be readily confounded. This difficulty is still further increased by the old physicians, who used a great many plants of this kind, and named them after the kitchen vegetables to which they had a resemblance, so that by these means plants totally different occur under the same name. To distinguish these, it is necessary first to examine which of them was a kitchen vegetable, and which was used in medicine.

Among our kitchen vegetables, as among the spices, there are many kinds which, at first, were known only on account of their medicinal properties, but afterwards were esteemed and cultivated on account of their good taste. Of this kind is the scorzonera[878 - Kerner, tab. 91.], which became first known in the middle of the sixteenth century, in Spain, where it was considered as an antidote to the poison of a snake called there scurzo. A Moor, who had learnt this property of it in Africa, cured with the juice of the leaves and the roots a great many peasants bitten by snakes while mowing; but he would not discover the plant, that he might retain all the advantage to himself. Some persons, however, who followed him to the mountains, where he collected it, observed that it was the Scurzonera, or Scorzonera hispanica, so called from the name of the snake. Petrus Cannizer transmitted the plant, together with a drawing of it, to John Odorich Melchior, physician to the queen of Bohemia; and the latter sent what he had obtained to Matthioli, who at that time was not acquainted with it[879 - Matthioli Epist. Med. v. p. 209; in Opera, Basil. 1674, fol.]. Soon after the roots were extolled in a particular tract by Nicholas Monardes, as a powerful remedy for the poison of snakes[880 - A translation, printed for the first time in Spanish in 1569, is in Clusii Exotica, p. 15.]. It is probable also that these roots were first used in Spain as food, and about the beginning of the sixteenth century were carried thence to France. The anonymous author of the well-known work Le Jardinier François, who was a gardener, and dealt in trees and seeds at Paris, boasts of having been the first who introduced these roots into the French gardens. The first edition of his book, which greatly contributed to improve gardening in France, was printed in 1616. At present the roots of the scorzonera are to be found in most gardens, but no one places faith in their medicinal virtue; and when they are occasionally prescribed by any physician for a ptisan perhaps, the other kind, the Scorzonera humilis, is preferred, though in the apothecaries’ shops the Spanish, taken from the gardens, is used in its stead[881 - Murray, Apparat. Med. i. p. 160.].

Among our species of the Allium genus, shallots, in consequence of their mild taste, are preferred. There can be no doubt that this name, as well as the French échalotte, is derived from Ascalonia; and the above species in the system is called Allium ascalonicum[882 - Kerner, tab. 307.]. Theophrastus, Pliny, Columella, Apicius, and others, speak of a species called ascalonia, brought from the city of Ascalon, in Palestine, as we are told by Pliny, Strabo, and Stephanus. The last-mentioned author states it as a report, that the first bulbs were observed in that neighbourhood. These names are found in the oldest catalogues of the German garden vegetables. There is sufficient reason also to conjecture that our shallots were the ascaloniæ of the ancients, and that they came originally from Palestine; especially as Hasselquist found the same species growing there wild. An important doubt, however, against this opinion arises from what is said by Theophrastus and Pliny; namely, that their ascaloniæ could not be propagated by bulbs, but by seeds[883 - Cepæ fissiles, or scissiles, or schistæ, are leeks, as Theophrastus tells us himself, which, when the leaves become yellow, are taken from the earth, and being freed from the leaves, are separated from each other, then dried, and in spring again put into the ground. If we believe that the ascaloniæ can be propagated only by seed, we must certainly read in Theophrastus μόνα γἀρ οὐ σχιστὰ, as Scaliger has already remarked.]; on the other hand, our shallots in Germany, and perhaps in every other part of Europe, never come to flower, and are obtained only by the bulbs; so that Linnæus procured the first flowers, through Hasselquist, from Palestine. But why should not all the other allium species be propagated by planting the bulbs?

[The kitchen-gardens of England were as scantily supplied with vegetables, until about the end of the sixteenth century, as the pleasure-grounds were with shrubs and flowers. “It was not,” says Hume, “till the end of the reign of Henry VIII. that any salads, carrots, turnips or other edible roots were produced in England; the little of these vegetables that was used was imported from Holland and Flanders. Queen Catherine, when she wanted a salad, was obliged to despatch a messenger thither on purpose.” Hume is not however quite correct in this point. Our ancestors, before Henry VIIIth’s time, had always their winter-cresses and water-cresses, and common Alexanders, which served them for celery; they had rampion and rocket; borage for their cool tankard, and amaranthus and goose-foot, or good Henry with sprout-kales, which they used as greens. Their fruits were neither numerous nor good, being chiefly confined to gooseberries, currants and strawberries; the apples and pears were generally indifferent, and their plums and cherries bad; although the latter are supposed to have been planted in this country so early as the year 800, at which time they were brought from Italy.

The most important of kitchen vegetables of the present day is certainly the potato. There is scarcely a doubt of the potato being a native of South America, and its existing in a wild state in elevated places in the tropical regions and in the more temperate districts of the western coast of that country. It appears probable that it was first brought into Europe from the mountainous parts of South America in the neighbourhood of Quito, to Spain, early in the sixteenth century; they were here called papas. From Spain they were carried to Italy, and there received the same name as the truffle, taratoufli. From Italy they went to Vienna, through the governor of Mons in Hainault, who sent some to Clusius in 1598. The potato arrived in England from North America, being brought from Virginia by the colonists sent out by Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584, and who returned in July 1586, and in all probability brought back the potato with them. Such is the opinion of Sir Joseph Banks; moreover, in De Bry’s Collection of Voyages[884 - Vol. i. p. 17.], he describes a plant called openawk, which is in all probability identical with the potato. Gerarde, in his herbal, published in 1597, figures the potato, under the name of the potato of Virginia, whence he says he received the roots. The potato was first cultivated in Ireland by the grandfather of Sir Robert Southwell, from tubers given him by Sir W. Raleigh. Some time after, they were grown in Lancashire, as some say, being conveyed there through a shipwreck; thence their culture has gradually diffused itself throughout the country.

The great dependence for nourishment placed in the potato by so many of the poor, has been lately exhibited in the great distress caused by the disease of the crops. In addition to its use as a direct article of food, the potato is applied to furnish starch, which is not unfrequently substituted for arrow-root and sugar.

In the year 1619, the common market-price of the potato was 1s. per lb.]

KNITTING NETS AND STOCKINGS. STOCKING-LOOM

In the art of weaving, the woof is thrown or made to pass through the numerous threads of the warp[885 - [It is scarcely necessary to inform the reader that the warp consists of the longitudinal threads of a woven fabric, which are crossed by the transverse threads or woof.]], and is retained by them; but in knitting there is only one thread, which is entwined in so ingenious a manner that it produces a tissue approaching near to cloth, both in its use and appearance, though it cannot be called cloth, because it is formed without warp and woof. I will not, however, quarrel in regard to names: the spider’s web is produced by only one thread, but in a manner indeed which differs as much from weaving as it does from knitting; and it is not known with certainty whether Arachne found out the art of weaving cloth or of making nets[886 - Ovidii Metamorph. vi. 5–145. Plin. Hist. Nat. vii. 56.].

There are two methods of knitting, essentially different from each other; the one employed in making nets, and the other in knitting stockings. In the former the twine is knotted into meshes by means of a knitting-needle; whereas in the knitting of stockings the meshes are produced without knots. Hence it may be readily comprehended why knit stockings can be so easily and so speedily un-knit, in order that the thread may be employed for new work; and why in nets this is impossible. The knots which prevent it render it on the other hand possible for nets to be cut or torn asunder, without destroying more meshes than those immediately exposed to the force applied. One may easily see also the cause why things knit in the same manner as stockings can be stretched without being torn, and, like elastic bodies, again contract as soon as the action of the distending force ceases. On this account no kind of cloth has yet been found fitter for gloves, stockings, garters and bandages. When not too closely knit, single parts can be extended without injury, as the threads in the neighbouring meshes give way, and the meshes become narrow or contracted. This, on account of the knots, is not possible in knitting of the first kind, which however produces the best nets, as the meshes suffer the water and mud, together with the fish that are too small, to pass through them, and retain only the fish that are larger. A captured fish, in order to escape, must tear to pieces, after each other, as many meshes as are equal to the circumference of its body. Were the net formed in the same manner as a stocking, a single mesh, if torn, would suffer it to pass through[887 - An Englishman, named J. W. Boswel, invented a machine on which sixty-eight meshes, with perfect knots, could be knit at the same time: it could be adapted also to fine works, and to lace. A description of it may be seen in the Transactions of the Society for the Encouragement of the Arts, vol. xiv.].

It is to be reckoned among the advantages of the present age, that a readiness in knitting is required as a part of female education in all ranks; and it may be easily acquired even by children, with the assistance of an expert and indulgent instructress. It is however astonishing that this art has not been banished by the refinement of modern manners, especially as so much of the time of young females is employed in the reading of novels and romances. But it is to be observed, that this occupation, which, with a little practice, becomes so easy that it may be called rather an amusement, does not interrupt discourse, distract the attention or check the powers of the imagination. It forms a ready resource when a vacuity occurs in conversation, or when a circumstance takes place which ought to be heard or seen, but not treated with too much seriousness: the prudent knitter then hears and sees what she does not wish to seem to hear or to see. Knitting does no injury either to the body or the mind, the latter of which suffers from romances. It occasions no prejudicial or disagreeable position, requires no straining of the eye-sight, and can be performed with as much convenience when standing or walking as when sitting. It may be interrupted without loss, and again resumed without trouble; and the whole apparatus for knitting, which is cheap, needs so little room, and is so light, that it can be kept and gracefully carried about in a basket, the beauty of which displays the expertness, or at any rate the taste, of the fair artist. Knitting belongs to the few useful occupations of old persons, who have not lost the use of their hands. Those who wish to reproach the fair sex for the time they waste in endeavouring to please the men, ought not to forget that the former know how to occupy those moments which the latter devote, not to labour, but to social enjoyment or pleasure, or which would be otherwise lost – the time in which the male sex are able to do nothing that is useful. No one, however, will seriously object this to the male sex, whose daily occupations tend so much to exhaust the spirits; but is it not to be regretted that those who, in consequence of their situation, perform properly no work, who are scarcely under the necessity of thinking, and who rather become corrupted through idleness, do not employ their vacant hours in knitting, in order to gain money? What I mean to say is, should not servants, soldiers, shepherds, and the male children of the peasants who are unfit for hard labour, learn to knit, that they might earn something for themselves and their families? A sale for knit articles, stockings, mitts, caps, nets and fine lace can never be wanting. My panegyric, however, on knitting is applicable, strictly speaking, to the second kind only, which surpasses the first in utility, but is a much more modern invention; for fishing and hunting were the oldest occupations, and mention of nets occurs in the earliest writings.

It is not improbable that the people who resided on the banks of rivers abundant in fish, endeavoured to catch them at first with baskets, such as those which most of the Indians know how to make, or with other vessels which suffered the water to run through them; but that in the course of time a piece of thin cloth was employed, and at a still later period, what was far more convenient, nets. Mention however of fishing and hunting nets occurs very often in the Scriptures; and in some passages it is clearly proved that we are to understand by them such as were knit. But I shall leave commentators to determine whether gins composed of ropes or cords[888 - Many commentators on the Greek and Roman writers have fallen into mistakes respecting these noose-ropes, because they were not acquainted with the nature of them. Their use among the Parthians is confirmed by Suidas, under the word σειραὶ, p. 303; where he says that on that account they were called σειροφόροι. Josephus asserts that they were employed by the Alani, and relates that Tiridates would have been caught in this manner, had he not quickly cut to pieces the rope. Under the same head may be comprehended the retiarii and laquearii, in the bloody spectacles of the Romans, whose method of fighting is said to have been found out by Pittacus. See Diogen. Laert. i. 74. To this subject belong the snares of the devil, pestilence, and death, in the Scriptures, and particularly in Psalm xviii. ver. 5. The laquei mortis of Horace, Carm. iii. 24, 8, were hence to be explained, and not by a Hebraism, as some of the old commentators have imagined. In the ordeals of the ancient Germans, when a man was obliged to combat with a woman, the latter had a rope with a noose, which she threw over her antagonist, who stood in a pit, in order that she might more easily overcome him. That such ropes are still employed among various nations is proved by Vancouver. In Hungary the wild horses at present are said to be caught by ropes of this kind.] are not often meant where the translators have introduced nets. The former are certainly older than the latter; they were long used both in hunting and in war, and are still employed among some savage tribes who are not acquainted with fire-arms.

That nets, however, should be invented at an early period needs excite no wonder, for they have been found in modern times among very rude nations. Wafer[889 - Wafer’s Voyage. Anderson’s Iceland. The author says that the beards are cut into slips; but these slips were fish-bone, which could be made into baskets but not into nets. He certainly meant the hair on the beard, which in Holland is used for wigs.] saw some among the American savages which were made of the bark of a tree; and the Greenlanders made some of the same kind of the hair of the whale’s beard, and of the sinews of other animals. I shall omit here what has been said in regard to nets in the works of the ancients, and particularly in those which treat on fishing and hunting. The Latins say texere retia; and Pliny calls the yarn or twine of which nets were made stamen; yet I am inclined to believe, that both the Greeks and the Romans made their nets in the same manner as we do at present.

Weaving, properly so called, is out of the question; and it appears that these words were used in a very general sense, because there was then no term of art to denote knitting. At any rate, I cannot believe that the far more ingenious process by which our lace-weavers prepare the netted scarfs used by military officers was then known, as Braun seems to think[890 - De Vest. Sac. Hebr. p. 100.]. Meshes were called by the Latins maculæ and nodi; but I as little understand what Pliny says, “retia succino nodantur,” as the supposed explanation of Hardouin, “retia nodos e succino habebant[891 - Hist. Nat. lib. xxxvii. cap. 3.].” The author alludes here perhaps to some ornament added to those nets which were drawn round the boxes or seats of the senators. Some manuscripts read notantur: I should have preferred ornantur.

The art of making nets of fine yarn, silk, or cotton, by the process of knitting, and employing them as articles of dress or ornament, is not an invention of modern luxury. I remember to have seen in old churches retiform hangings, and on old dresses of ceremony borders or trimming of the same kind, which fashion seems alternately to have banished and recalled. That in the middle ages the mantles of the clergy had often coverings of silk made in the same manner as fishing-nets, has been proved by Du Cange[892 - Rete, id est ornamentum sericum ad instar retis contextum. – Acta S. Deodati, tom. iii. Junii, p. 871.]. I suspect also that the transparent dresses used by the ladies, more than four hundred years ago, to cover those beauties which they still wished to be visible, were nets of this kind[893 - In the Limpurg Chronicle, which may be found in Von Hontheim, Hist. Trevirensis, vol. ii. p. 1084, is the following passage: “The ladies wore new weite hauptfinstern, so that the men almost saw their breasts;” and Moser, who quotes this passage in his Phantasien, conjectures that the hauptfinstern might approach near to lace. I never met with the word anywhere else; but Frisch, in his Dictionary, says, “Vinster in a Vocabularium of the year 1492 is explained by the words drat, schudrat, thread, coarse thread.” May it not be the word fenster, a window? And in that case may it not allude to the wide meshes? Fenestratum meant formerly, perforated or reticulated; and this signification seems applicable to those shoes mentioned by Du Cange under the name of calcei fenestrati. At any rate it is certain that the article denoted by hauptfinstern belonged to those dresses mentioned by Seneca in his treatise De Beneficiis, 59. Pliny says that such dresses were worn, “ut in publico matrona transluceat.”].

Far more ingenious and of much later invention is that art which was undoubtedly first employed in making stockings, and on that account called stocking-knitting. That the Romans and most of the ancient nations had no particular clothing for the lower part of the body, is so well known, that it is unnecessary for me to repeat the proofs. Their legs however did not suffer more from the cold than our hands when they are not covered by gloves, or than the feet of the Franciscans at present; and what is common is not indecent. It is well known that the northern nations first had hose or trowsers, which covered not only the legs but the thighs and loins; and it was not till a few centuries ago, that from this article of dress people began to make two; the upper part retained the old name, and the lower, that which covered the legs, was called in German strumpf, truncus, which word Maler in his Dictionary explains by halbhosen, half-hose, and hosenstrumpf. The diminutive strümpfle signifies, according to this author, hose that reach to the calf of the leg. The first stockings were of cloth, and made by the tailors; consequently they were not so commodious as our knit-stockings, which, for the reason already mentioned, become closely contracted, without pressing the foot or impeding a person in walking.

It is more than probable that the art of knitting stockings was first found out in the sixteenth century, but the time of the invention is doubtful; it is also uncertain to what people we are indebted for it, and the name of the inventor is entirely unknown. Savary appears to be the first person who hazarded the conjecture[894 - Dict. de Commerce. Copenh. 1759, fol. i. pp. 388, 576.], that this art is a Scottish invention, because the French stocking-knitters, when they became so numerous as to form a guild, made choice of St. Fiacre, a native of Scotland, to be their patron; and besides this, there is a tradition, that the first knit stockings were brought to France from that country. However this may be, it is certain that the first letter of foundation for this guild, named “la Communauté des Maitres Bonnetiers au Tricot,” is dated the 16th, or, as others say, the 26th of August 1527. St. Fiacre, I shall here remark, was the second son of Eugenius, who is said to have been king of Scotland in the beginning of the seventh century; he lived as a hermit at Meaux in France, and his name in the sacred calendar stands opposite to the 30th of August[895 - Gentleman’s Magazine, vol. liii. 1783, p. 38. In the Heiligen Lexicon St. Fiacre is improperly called the son of an Irishman of distinction.]. It must however be acknowledged that Savary’s conjecture rests only on a very slight foundation.

Somewhat more probable is an opinion, which has been long prevalent in England, and is supported by the testimony of respectable writers. Howell, in his History of the World, printed in 1680, relates that Henry VIII., who reigned from 1509 to 1547, and who was fond of show and magnificence, wore at first woollen stockings; till by a singular occurrence he received a pair of knit silk stockings from Spain. His son Edward VI., who succeeded him on the throne, obtained by means of a merchant named Thomas Gresham, a pair of long Spanish knit silk stockings; and this present was at that time highly prized. Queen Elizabeth, in the third year of her reign, that is in 1561, received by her silk-woman, named Montague, a pair of black silk knit stockings, and afterwards would not wear any other kind[896 - Howell, in speaking of the trade in the oldest times, says, p. 222, “Silk is now grown nigh as common as wool, and become the cloathing of those in the kitchin as well as the court; we wear it not onely on our backs, but of late years on our legs and feet, and tread on that which formerly was of the same value with gold itself. Yet that magnificent and expensive prince, Henry VIII., wore ordinarly cloth-hose, except there came from Spain, by great chance, a pair of silk stockins. K. Edward, his son, was presented with a pair of long Spanish silk stockins by Thomas Gresham, his merchant, and the present was taken much notice of. Queen Elizabeth in the third year of her reign was presented by Mrs. Montague, her silk-woman, with a pair of black knit silk stockins, and thenceforth she never wore cloth any more.”].

This information is confirmed by another account. It is related in Stow’s Chronicle, that the earl of Pembroke was the first nobleman who wore worsted knit stockings. In the year 1564, William Rider, an apprentice of Master Thomas Burdet, having accidentally seen in the shop of an Italian merchant a pair of knit worsted stockings, procured from Mantua, and having borrowed them, made a pair exactly like them, and these were the first stockings knit in England of woollen yarn.

From this testimony, it has been hitherto believed in England that knit stockings were first made known there under Henry VIII.; that they were brought from Spain to that country; and that the invention belongs, in all probability, to the Spaniards. Were this really the case, one might conjecture that the first knit stockings known in England were of silk, though the imitations made by Rider were of wool. For under Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Elizabeth, silk stockings only are mentioned; and at that period silk, and not woollen articles, were imported from Italy and Spain. Did the invention belong to the Spaniards, I should be inclined to conjecture that these people obtained it from the Arabians, to whom we are indebted for many useful and ingenious arts. But at any rate the conjecture of Savary falls to the ground; for as the French had a stocking-knitters’ guild as early as 1527, it is highly improbable that the English, forty years after, or about the year 1564, should have been unacquainted with the invention of their nearest neighbours, the Scots.

Some years ago, however, several learned men in England were led, by a singular circumstance, to collect information in regard to the antiquity of the art of knitting stockings. I here allude to the forgeries of Thomas Chatterton, who was born on the 20th of November 1752, and terminated his unfortunate life by suicide on the 24th of August 1770. This ingenious youth published some poems which he pretended were written by Thomas Rowley, who lived in the reign of Edward IV., that is about the year 1461. Many literary men denied the authenticity of these poems, though they possessed great beauty; proclaimed Chatterton to be a second Psalmanasar; and justified their opinion by the circumstance of knit stockings being mentioned in them. This they said was an anachronism, as the invention of knitting stockings, according to Howell and Stow, must be a century later than the supposed poet Rowley. Others, who supported the genuineness of these poems, endeavoured on that account to make the invention older, and collected information in regard to the history of it, from which I have made the following extract[897 - The lines which allude to this subject are in the tragedy of Ella: —“She sayde, as herr whytte hondes whyte hosen were knyttinge,Whatte pleasure ytt ys to be married!”].

In the beginning of the sixteenth century the people of Scotland had breeches, in the proper sense of the word, and wore a kind of stockings; for Hector Boethius, who was professor at Aberdeen in 1497, relates that the Scots wore hose which reached only to the knee, consequently stockings made of linen or woollen, and breeches chiefly of hemp[898 - In his Description of Scotland, according to the old translation, in Hollingshed, “Their hosen were shapen also of linnen or woolen, which never came higher than their knees; their breeches were for the most part of hempe.”].

These particular articles of dress were usual at that time even in England; for in the year 1510 king Henry VIII. appeared, on a public occasion, with his attendants, in elegant dresses, in the description of which breeches and hose are particularly mentioned[899 - “The king and some of the gentlemen had the upper parts of their hosen, which was of blue and crimson, powdered with castels and sheafes of arrows of fine ducket gold, and the nether parts of scarlet, powdered with timbrels of fine,” &c… There is reason however to suppose that the upper and nether parts of the hose were separate pieces, as they were of different colours. This description stands in the third volume of Hollingshed’s Chronicles, p. 807, where it is said, speaking of another festival, “The garments of six of them were of strange fashion, with also strange cuts, everie cut knit with points of fine gold, and tassels of the same, their hosen cut in and tied likewise.” What the word knit here signifies might perhaps be discovered if we had an English Journal of Luxury and Fashions for the sixteenth century.].

In the year 1530, the word knit, applied to stockings, must have been common in England; for at that time John Palsgrave, French master to the Princess Mary, daughter of Henry VIII., published a grammar, in which he stated that this word in French was applied to the making of nets as well as of caps and stockings.

From a household book of a noble family in the time of Henry VIII., we learn that knit stockings, both for grown-up people and children, were sold at so low a price that it cannot be supposed they were foreign articles[900 - Gentleman’s Magazine, 1782, vol. lii. p. 229. From an authentic and curious household book kept during the life of Sir Tho. L’Estrange, Knt. of Hunstanton in Norfolk, by his lady Ann, daughter of the lord Vaux, are the following entries: —It is to be observed, that the first-mentioned were for Sir Thomas and the latter for his children.].

In the reign of Edward VI. various kinds of knit articles must have been made in England, as appears by some regulations relating to trade and manufactures issued in 1552[901 - The act made on this occasion is not to be found in any of the old or new editions of the Statutes at Large. It is omitted in that published at London, 1735, fol. ii. p. 63, because it was afterwards annulled. Smith, in Memoirs of Wool, Lond. 1747, 8vo, i. p. 89, says it was never printed; but it is to be found in a collection of the acts of king Edward VI., printed by Richard Grafton, 1552, fol. The following passage from this collection, which is so scarce even in England that it is not named in Ames’s Typographical Antiquities, is given in the Gentleman’s Magazine, vol. liii. part 1, p. 127: – “In this acte limitinge the tymes for buieing and sellyng of wolles, mention is made of chamblettes, wolstende, saies, stamine, knitte hose, knitte peticotes, knitte gloves, knitte slieves, hattes, coives, cappes, arrasse, tapissery, coverlettes, girdles, or any other thing used to be made of woolle.”].

It nevertheless can be proved, that in the fifth year of the reign of queen Mary, that is in 1558, there were many who wore stockings of cloth; for Dr. Sands, who was afterwards archbishop of York, sent for a tailor to measure him for a pair of hose[902 - This account is to be found in Hollingshed’s Chronicles. “Dr. Sands at his going to bed in Hurleston’s house, had a paire of hose newlie made, that were too long for him. For while he was in the Tower, a tailor was admitted to make him a pair of hose. One came in to him whose name was Beniamin, dwelling in Birchin-lane; he might not speak to him or come to him to take measure of him, but onelie to look upon his leg; he made the hose, and they were two inches too long. These hose he praied the good wife of the house to send to some tailor to cut two inches shorter. The wife required the boy of the house to carrie them to the next tailor, which was Beniamin that made them. The boy required him to cut the hose. He said I am not the maister’s tailor. Saith the boy, because ye are our next neighbour, and my maister’s tailor dwelleth far off, j come to you. Beniamin took the hose and looked upon them, he took his handle work in hand, and said, these are not thy maister’s hose, but Dr. Sands, them j made in the Tower.”]. This might serve to confirm the assertion of Stow, that stockings were not knit in England till six years after. But according to the testimonies already produced, this cannot be true. It is much more credible, that the clergy and old people, who are not ready to adopt new modes, wore some years later the old-fashioned stockings of cloth, which in all probability were similar to our gaiters.

It might be mentioned, as a further proof, if necessary, of breeches and stockings being considered, long before the reign of queen Elizabeth, as separate parts of dress, that in the catalogue then drawn up of the revenue of the bishop of St. Asaph, it is stated that he received as a perquisite, on the death of every clergyman who had a living, his best breeches and stockings[903 - “Item, his best coat, jerkin, doublet and breeches. Item, his hose or nether stockings, shoes and garters.” – Survey of the Cathedral of St. Asaph, by Browne Willis, 1720, 8vo.].

About 1577, that is ten years after the period of the invention as given by Stow, knitting must have been common throughout all England, and practised even in villages. The bark of the alder was used by the wives of the peasants for dyeing the stockings which they had knitted[904 - Hollingshed’s Chronicle, 1577, p. 213.].

According to the well-known poet George Gascoigne[905 - In his satyre called The Steel of Glass: – “In silk knitt hose, and Spanish leather shoes.”], the greatest ornaments in dress, about the year 1576, were knit silk stockings and Spanish leather shoes.

About 1579, and not 1570 as stated in the Gentleman’s Magazine, when queen Elizabeth was at Norwich, several female children appeared before her, some of whom were spinning worsted yarn, and others knitting worsted yarn hose[906 - In Hollingshed, third part, p. 1290: – “Upon the stage there stood at the one end eight small women children, spinning worsted yarne, and at the other as manie knitting of worsted yarn hose.”].

The art of knitting stockings would be much older in Germany than in France or in England; and Chatterton, at any rate, would be freed from the charge of committing an anachronism, were it true, as Micrælius wrote in the year 1639, that the consort of the duke of Pomerania, who died in 1417, when she could no longer sew or embroider amused herself with knitting[907 - Buch des Alten Pommerlandes, 1639, 4to, p. 388: – “Duke Bogislaus VIII. suffered himself at length to be overcome by love, and married Sophia, daughter of Procopius margrave of Moravia, who was a very prudent and moderate lady. In her old age, when her sight became bad, so that she was incapable of sewing or embroidering, she never put the knitting-needle out of her hands, as is written in our chronicles. The rhymes which she always had in her mouth are remarkable: —Nicht beten, gern spatzieren gehn,Oft im Fenster und vorm Spiegel stehn,Viel geredet, und wenig gethan,Mein Kind, da ist nichts Fettes an.‘Never to pray; to be fond of walking; to stand often at the window and before the looking-glass; to talk much and do little; is not, my child, the way to be rich.’”]. But it is very probable that this good man committed an anachronism, like Chatterton; and, in order to show the industry of the duchess, named those occupations which were usual in his own time.

In Germany, as far as I know at present, stocking-knitters occur for the first time about the middle of the sixteenth century, under the name of hosenstricker, a term which in Lower Saxony is still not uncommon. At Hamburg the people say hasenknütter, and use the word hase for stockings. In Berlin there were stocking-knitters about the year 1590. In many countries they had a particular guild; and this is the case at present in the duchy of Wirtemberg, where they are entirely different from those who work at the loom, and who are called stocking-weavers. Each have their own regulations, in which it is ordered that the stocking-knitters shall wear no articles wove, that is knit, in a loom, and the stocking-weavers no articles knit with the hand. That knitting however may be left free, as an occasional occupation to every one, the following words are inserted in the regulations of the stocking-knitters: – “Poor people, who through want of other means procure a subsistence by knitting stockings, and those who at the gates keep watch for themselves or others, and at the same time knit, shall be at liberty to wear whatever they make with their own hands.”

The German terms of art which relate to knitting are older than the art itself, for they are all borrowed from the making of nets; knütten, knüteisen, knütholz, knütspan, stricken and stricknadel, and also maschen, are all terms which occur in the fishing-regulations of Brandenburg for the year 1574, and no doubt earlier. The tricoter of the French had the same origin as the German word stricken: Trica was a lock of hair, a noose; and tricare signified to entangle, and deceive. Lacer is derived from laqs, a rope, a noose; and this comes from laqueus. The English word stocking is derived from stock, truncus, the trunk of a tree, a word still retained by the German foresters, who in the Low German speak of rooting out stocks.

Silk stockings, however, in consequence of their high price, were for a long time used only on very grand occasions. Henry II., king of France, wore such stockings for the first time at the marriage of his sister with the duke of Savoy in 1559[908 - Mezeray, where he speaks of the silk manufactories under Henry IV.]. In the reign of Henry III., who ascended the throne in 1575, the consort of Geoffroy Camus de Pontcarre, who held a high office in the state, would not wear silk stockings given to her by a nurse, who lived at court, as a Christmas present, because she considered them to be too gay. In the year 1569, when the privy-counsellor Barthold von Mandelsloh, who had been envoy to many diets and courts, appeared on a week-day at court with silk stockings which he had brought from Italy, the margrave John of Custrin said to him, “Barthold, I have silk stockings also; but I wear them only on Sundays and holidays.” The celebrated Leonard Thurneisser, however, who lived at the court of Brandenburg about the end of the sixteenth century, wore silk stockings daily, and in general dressed very magnificently in silk and velvet.

Knitting with wires, the method of which I have hitherto spoken, has always appeared to me so ingenious, that I conceived the inventor of it must have had a pattern to serve as a guide. This pattern I think I have discovered. Wire-workers, and other artists who used wire, exercised their ingenuity some centuries ago, more than at present, in making wire-screens in various ways; and it must be confessed that many of them produced articles, which even at present, though not suited to the modern taste, deserve admiration. Works of this kind may still be found in old churches. The art of making them has often been considered as too difficult for human hands; and hence popular tradition has asserted that the artists were assisted by the devil. A tale of this kind is still related, though no longer believed, to those whose curiosity induces them to view the wire-screen which surrounds the baptismal font in St. Mary’s church at Wismar, and which is plaited or wove in so ingenious a manner, as if with ropes, that neither the beginning nor end of the wires can be observed. A similar legend is told to strangers when shown the screen around the pulpit in the cathedral of Lubec, which, according to the inscription, was made in 1572. It is not improbable that, among works of this kind, some may be found made with meshes, as if formed by knitting. Our pin-makers can construct some much more ingenious. That I might be better able in my technological lectures to convey to my pupils an idea of knitting, I made a drawing on the subject, and caused a pin-maker to weave for me a small screen of brass wire. This work is easy, because it is executed in a frame of strong but pliable wire. I suspect therefore that some one first tried to make an imitation of such a wire-net with yarn, and in one expanded piece, for which only two or three small sticks would be necessary. Instead of having a frame, the inventor, it is probable, fastened to his clothes the stick on which the meshes were made, or on which he knitted; but afterwards employed a sheath to perform that service. Thus, most of the Wirtemberg stocking-knitters, at present, knit with two wires and a sheath. Hence their stockings, like those wove in the stocking-loom, are sewed or have a seam behind.

Among the master-pieces of the Wirtemberg stocking-knitters, a carpet of beautiful flower-work and figures is mentioned in their regulations. It is milled, and when spread out measures three ells in length and one and a half in breadth. It is probable that some person, by repeated trials, found out the method of knitting in a circular form; but for this purpose several wires would be necessary. In order to render this improved art of knitting similar to the old method, the meshes were so arranged that the stockings seemed to have a seam, for which however there was no occasion. The sheath, which was fastened to the left side, was long retained by our knitters; but as it retarded the work, and as it was necessary to keep the body in an uneasy posture, injurious to the growth of young and industrious persons, means were devised to dispense with it and to knit with much less restraint. In this manner the art was brought to its present perfection; and it must excite no small astonishment when it is considered that it was invented all at once, and by one person.

The invention of the stocking-loom is worthy of more admiration, when one reflects that it was not a matter of accident, like most of the great discoveries, but the result of talents and genius. It is a machine exceedingly complex, consisting of two thousand parts, which, in a moment almost, can make two hundred meshes of loops, without requiring much skill or labour in the workman. There are few descriptions of this machine; and those published do not fully answer the purpose[909 - The first description of the stocking-loom illustrated by figures, with which I am acquainted, is in Deering’s Nottingham, 1751, 4to, but it is very imperfect. A much better is to be found in the second volume of the Encyclopédie, printed at Paris, 1751, fol. p. 94–113. The figures are in the first volume of the second part of the Planches, and make eleven plates, eight of which are full sheets. [The reader will also find a very good description of the stocking-loom illustrated with woodcuts in Ure’s Dictionary, art. Hosiery.]]. But my object is merely the question, Who was the inventor, in what country, and at what time did he live? and I can say, that after the most diligent research, it does not appear subject to any doubt, as some have hitherto believed.

Under the administration of Cromwell, the stocking-knitters of London presented a petition, in which they requested permission to establish a guild. In this petition they gave to the Protector an account of the rise, progress, and importance of their art or trade; and there can be no doubt that this well-written document contains the oldest authentic information in regard to this invention, which was then scarcely fifty years old. Every thing must then have been fresh in the memory of those by whom it was drawn up; every circumstance could easily be examined; and the petitioners must have been sensible that their misrepresentations, for which however they had no reason, could easily be contradicted. However unimportant my research may appear, it gave me much pleasure to find a copy of this petition in Deering’s Account of Nottingham, already mentioned, in which the author has collected many authentic circumstances from the records of that town, where the loom was first employed and enriched many families, and whence the use of it was spread all over England and Europe[910 - The following passage occurs in the petition, p. 302: “Which trade is properly stiled framework-knitting, because it is direct and absolute knit-work in the stitches thereof, nothing different therein from the common way of knitting (not much more antiently for publick use practised in this nation than this), but only in the numbers of needles, at an instant working in this, more than in the other by an hundred for one, set in an engine or frame composed of above 2000 pieces of smith, joiners, and turners work, after so artificial and exact a manner, that, by the judgement of all beholders, it far excels in the ingenuity, curiosity, and subtility of the invention and contexture, all other frames or instruments of manufacture in use in any known part of the world.”].