Kitabı oxu: «A History of Inventions, Discoveries, and Origins, Volume II (of 2)», səhifə 22

FUR DRESSES

As long as mankind lived under palm-trees in their original country, between the tropics, they had no occasion to provide either food or clothing: the former was spontaneously supplied by the earth, that is, without care or labour; and the latter in that warm climate was superfluous. The art of cultivating plants, and that of preparing clothes, were not innate, but first taught by necessity; and this did not exist till men, in consequence of their increase, were obliged to spread towards both the poles. In proportion as they removed from their former abode, provisions became scarcer, and the climate colder. Hence arose the breeding of cattle, as well as agriculture; and men then first ventured on the cruelty of killing animals, in order that they might devour them as food, and use their skins to shelter them against the severity of the weather.

At first these skins were used raw, without any preparation; and many nations did not till a late period fall upon the art of rendering them softer, and making them more pliable, durable, and convenient. As long as mankind traded only for necessaries, and paid no attention to ornaments, they turned the hairy side towards the body; but as the art of dressing skins was not then understood, the flesh side must have given to this kind of clothing, when the manners of people began to be more refined, an appearance which could not fail of exciting disgust. To prevent this the Ozolæ inverted the skins, and wore the hair outwards; and in this manner some account for the bad smell which exhaled from their bodies⁷¹². This custom, however, was so general, that Juvenal, where he describes a miserly person, says, “to guard himself against the cold he does not wear the costly woollen clothing of the luxurious Romans, but the skins of animals, and these even inverted, that is to say, with the hairy side turned inwards, without caring whether the appearance be agreeable or not⁷¹³.” In what manner the art of tanning was afterwards found out, Goguet has endeavoured to conjecture from the accounts given by travellers, in regard to the savages in the northern parts of America and Asia, but particularly in regard to the Greenlanders. The far more ingenious method of manufacturing wool, first into felt and then into cloth, seems to have been discovered by the inhabitants of temperate districts, where the mildness of the winter rendered fur dresses unnecessary.

The sheep came from Africa; but in that country it has hair and not wool; and it is only in colder climates that the former acquires a woolly nature. If it be true that a Hercules first brought this species of animal from Africa to Greece⁷¹⁴, that improvement may have first been effected in the latter country; in which case it is probable that the first attempts to manufacture wool were made by the Athenians, that is to say, among the Greeks; for this art was before known to the Egyptians, who ascribe the invention of it to their Isis.

It may be readily comprehended that many centuries must have elapsed before the tender sheep could be conveyed to and reared in the northern countries, where thick and immense forests produced in abundance a great variety of those animals which were capable of supplying the best furs; where mankind increased but slowly; applied to hunting till a later period; and were not so soon compelled to employ artificial methods of obtaining the most necessary productions; and where they also lived too widely scattered to be soon conducted to the arts by a communication of experience and inventions. The northern nations, therefore, clothed themselves in the raw skins of animals, a long time after the southern tribes were acquainted with the spinning and weaving of wool, flax, and cotton; and on this account the former were astonished at the appearance of the latter.

When the Greeks give us a picture of these barbarians, they scarcely ever fail to state how disgusting they were on account of their dress; which however, by the acknowledgement of their historians, was long worn by their own forefathers⁷¹⁵. The heroes even of the Grecian fabulous history clothed themselves in the skins of the most terrible animals⁷¹⁶, such as lions and tigers, and on these they also slept. When the Romans wished to describe the manners of their ancestors, and to exhibit the difference between them and their own, they commonly mentioned the use of skins. Thus Propertius calls the senators of the earliest periods the pelliti⁷¹⁷, and Valerius Maximus says⁷¹⁸, speaking of the luxury of his time, that no one in imitation of Cato would use goat skins as a covering to his bed. But it appears that the Greeks and the Romans, at the time of their prosperity, when the arts and sciences were cultivated among them, made little use of fur clothing. It was worn at that period only on certain festivals, and merely by the poorer classes and rustics⁷¹⁹, or employed in the time of war⁷²⁰. At any rate, it is not mentioned among the dresses of the rich, or articles of magnificence and ornament.

The ancient physicians, where they treat on the influence which clothing has on the health, and the choice of it for winter and summer, make no mention of furs. Suetonius, describing the manner in which the emperor Augustus dressed in winter, names various articles of clothing, but no furs; which the emperor, who was so sensible of cold, would certainly have worn, had they been usual. They no doubt would have been much more convenient and answered the purpose better, than the four tunicæ drawn over each other, and the thick toga, the woollen shirt and breast-cloth, and all the other articles mentioned. Martial ridicules a petit-maître, who wished for the arrival of winter and for severe weather in that season, in order that he might exhibit his costly winter dresses. Had furs, at that period, been the fashionable and principal winter clothing, the poet certainly would not have omitted to mention them. At present the baccaræ for the like reason make their appearance as soon as the first frost takes place, along with large muffs, which leave scarcely any part of the body to be seen but the head and the feet. Had furs been employed by way of ornament in the time of Pliny, he no doubt would have noticed this use of them, especially as he mentions and ridicules so many superstitious ways of applying the skins of animals; but I do not remember to have read in the works of this naturalist any account of fur clothing. He relates that an attempt had been made to manufacture the fur of the hare; but it had not succeeded, because the fur, on account of its shortness, as he supposes, would not adhere, or, as we say at present, could not be felted⁷²¹. He, however, says nothing of hare’s fur being employed to line clothes. It appears also that furs do not often occur as clothing in the sacred scriptures⁷²². In the third, or perhaps even the second century of the Christian æra, fur dresses seem to have been known to the Romans, and to have been much esteemed by them. The numerous northern tribes, who at that time advanced towards the south, were clothed in furs; but they were not all raw, dirty, and disgusting, like those which had before been in use. It may with certainty be supposed that the chief men among them had the most beautiful furs; and that in general they were so well acquainted with the art of preparing them, and wearing them in the most graceful manner, that they by these means recommended them to the notice of the young Romans. For that all those warlike tribes who attacked the Roman empire, and in part subdued it, are not to be considered as uncultivated, savage barbarians, unacquainted with the arts or the sciences, addicted to plundering and murder, who overturned governments and destroyed public happiness and trade, has been lately remarked, when the French applied the term Vandalism to the horrid cruelties committed during the late revolution⁷²³. It can be proved that the Romans adopted from their uninvited guests those kinds of dress; that furs soon became fashionable among them, and were an object of luxury and of commerce; and it appears that skins were the first article which occasioned a trade from Italy to the most distant parts of the North, as in the fifteenth century they were the cause of the discovery and conquest of Siberia.

The later the art of manufacturing wool, and of converting the noble metals into lace and other ornaments, was known, in the northern countries, and the later the inhabitants became acquainted with cotton, silk, and precious stones, the earlier and the more they exerted themselves to find out and prepare the most beautiful furs, and to trim and to border with them their dresses; and it needs excite no surprise that the southern nations, though their climate did not require it, adopted this magnificence; especially as the distance and scarcity of furs made them dear enough to be considered by the rich and people of rank as a luxurious mark of distinction. This, in my opinion, will be proved by what follows.

When historians speak of those northern nations with whom the Romans carried on long and for the most part unfortunate wars, they scarcely ever forget to mention their fur clothing; and this is the case in particular with those writers who lived at the time. We are told by Herodotus, that the people near the Caspian sea clothed themselves in seal-skins. The same thing is related by Strabo of the Massagetæ; and Cæsar and Sallust both assert, that the skin of the rein-deer formed in part the clothing of the ancient Germans. I allude here to those dresses which they call renones. That this word is derived from the animal named at present by the Swedes Ren; that the rein-deer was common in ancient Germany, when, in consequence of its being covered with forests and marshes, it had a much colder climate and produced more rein-deer moss than at present; and that Cæsar, where he describes the most remarkable things of Germany, mentions the rein-deer under the name of bos cervi figura, I think I have proved in my juvenile production on the ancient animals of that country. Reno is also Lappmud, or the rein-deer skin, which is still worn in Sweden, which I have worn there myself, and which is handsome and costly. The objection of Wachter⁷²⁴ to this opinion is of very little weight. How is it possible to believe, says he, that these animals were formerly so numerous, that all the Germans and Gauls could clothe themselves in their skins? But on this occasion he does not recollect what he has often proved by examples, that the name of a species is often given to the whole genus. Because a great many wore renones, of which the Romans perhaps were fondest, they gave the name of renones to all these fur dresses of the Germans. The proofs, in ancient authors, in regard to the fur clothing of the Scythians, the Goths, the Getæ, and Huns, are too numerous to be collected. I shall therefore refer only to those passages which I have occasionally remarked, and which I shall soon employ for another purpose⁷²⁵.

It can easily be proved that the Germans and other northern nations, in consequence of their intercourse with the Romans, gradually left off the use of furs, and became more and more accustomed to woollen clothing; and, on the other hand, that the Romans adopted the state dress of their conquerors. Even in the time of Tacitus, those Germans who lived on the Rhine and the Danube, and consequently who were nearest to the Romans, set much less value on furs than those who, residing further within the country, were at a greater distance from intercourse with foreigners and from trade⁷²⁶. The latter had the most costly furs, which they knew how to ornament and variegate with trimmings of every kind, in the same manner perhaps as our furriers at present ornament white fur with the tail of the ermine⁷²⁷. These people possessed no other articles of luxury, and had no other means of distinguishing themselves among their countrymen, but by the rarity and costliness of their furs. Such was the case with the Spartans when Lycurgus deprived them of all their superfluities. They then ornamented, and thereby enhanced the value of the necessary articles they had left, beds, tables and wooden bowls, from which they drank water, and to such a degree, that at length these things were as capable of gratifying the taste of luxury as the foreign wares they had before purchased at so dear a rate⁷²⁸.

The same thing has been remarked by the Danish and Swedish historians. When these nations, by their sea voyages, piratical expeditions and trade, became acquainted with foreign manners, and more convenient kinds of clothing, they accustomed themselves to wool, cotton and silk; yet, in so slow a manner, that the use of these wares was introduced as an extravagant luxury. Harold Härdrät Sigurdson, or Harold IV. king of Norway, in the middle of the eleventh century, who had collected great riches in the Levant, wore a red mantle lined with white furs. In the twelfth century the principal men at the Danish court were clothed in sheep-skins⁷²⁹; and when Duke Canute, or Canute Laward, the son of Eric Eiegod, who was assassinated in the year 1131, appeared at a festival at Ripe in a dress of red cloth, he excited attention and envy, and was subjected to the mortification of hearing the most bitter sarcasms from Henry Skatteler, or rather Skokal, that is, the lame, who wore a native sheep-skin⁷³⁰.

That furs were considered by the Getæ as objects of magnificence, and that as such they were worn by their kings and the principal men at court, is proved by the passages I have quoted. The reproach thrown out by Claudian against Rufinus, that he was not ashamed to wear Getic furs, proves that the Romans adopted the manners of their conquerors, and that this practice was censured by their patriots. It is worthy of remark also, that the jurists, Ulpian and Paulus, reckon furs among articles of dress, to which before their time they did not belong⁷³¹.

Acron, an old commentator on Horace, whose period, as far as I know, has not yet been determined, says that in his time the senators and principal men, when they appeared in their official dresses, wore costly furs obtained from foreign countries, and Tertullian⁷³² indignantly inveighs against the female dresses bordered and trimmed with furs, which seem to be mentioned also by bishop Maximus in the fifth century.

In the year 397, the emperor Honorius forbade Gothic dresses, and in particular furs, to be worn either in Rome or within the jurisdiction of the city; but that such orders against fashions had very little effect appears from this circumstance, that these laws, extended as well as rendered more severe, were renewed in 399 and 416, and yet were not obeyed. Even the Goths themselves were forbidden to use such dresses. The Gothic servants, who at that time were kept in most families, were to be subjected to corporal punishment, and those of higher rank to a fine, in case they transgressed this prohibition. But Synesius, who lived at that period, and as a good patriot lamented the use of these outlandish dresses, which afforded a melancholy presage that the dominion of the Goths would at length prevail, relates, that the principal men among these people appeared at Rome in the Roman dress, but on their return home they exchanged it for their native clothing, and again assumed their furs.

Furs, however, were not the only part of the Gothic costume which became modish among the Romans; for they adopted also their breeches or hose. That such articles of dress were not used before that time, either by the Greeks, the Romans, or the Hebrews, has been proved by many. On this account mention is so often made of indecent postures, as when the Scotch Highlanders rendent les armes, by which parts are exposed that modesty requires to be concealed. This is considered by Theophrastus as one of the marks of clownishness⁷³³. Thus, a posture inadvertently assumed, exposed Philip to reproach, as we are told by Plutarch⁷³⁴; and to guard against a similar indecorum, Cæsar, as he fell, collected his robes around him. Hence, as is well known, the expression retained by Luther, seine Füsse bedecken, “to cover one’s feet,” or as the Greeks say, “to compose one’s clothes⁷³⁵.” Persons who laboured under weakness or indisposition, wrapped bandages around their legs; and in the time of Quintilian, the use of these could be excused only by sickness⁷³⁶. They, however, became afterwards more common, so that by Ulpian they are reckoned among the ordinary articles of dress⁷³⁷. They formed a step towards breeches, properly so called, which, as is well known, covered for many centuries the loins, thighs and legs, as may be seen on seals and carved work of the thirteenth century⁷³⁸. That the Batavians, Gauls, Germans, Sarmatians, Getæ, Goths, &c. had such articles of clothing, is proved by many passages in ancient authors, already quoted by others, and by the well-known appellation Gallia braccata. The anaxurides also of the Persians were breeches, which the Romans adopted, not from these people, but from the northern nations, yet without the approbation of the patriots, who exclaimed against them, as they had before done against furs. At first they seem to have been used only on journeys and in war. When the Gothic costume was forbidden by Honorius, breeches were expressly mentioned; and Ovid reproaches the people of Tomi, on the Pontus Euxinus, that though they wished to be thought of Greek extraction, they were not ashamed to wear Persian breeches⁷³⁹.

As furs for dresses of ceremony were either not used at all by the Greeks and the Romans, or were adopted only at a late period and seldom employed, an account of the fur trade is not to be expected in their writings. I am well aware that Isaac Vossius had an idea that the history of the golden fleece might be considered as the oldest trace of it⁷⁴⁰, and therefore asserted that the object of the Argonautic expedition to Colchis was a commercial speculation, as was the case with the voyages of the English to Nootka Sound. It is also true that this opinion met with some approbation; but it has no more probability than that entertained by the alchymists in regard to the same expedition since the time of Suidas. That the Colchi, indeed, carried on a very extensive trade is sufficiently proved by the testimony of Pliny and Strabo; but the latter, in the catalogue of wares, mentions timber for ship-building, pitch, wax, linen and hemp, but not furs, which at that time could not be an article much sought after in foreign commerce.

Another account which we read in Pliny seems much rather to refer to the fur trade. I here allude to that quoted by Böttiger⁷⁴¹, from which it appears that furs were reckoned among the articles obtained at that time from the Seres⁷⁴². I, however, freely confess that I cannot readily admit this single word of Pliny as a complete proof. As far as I have yet been able to find, other writers, among the articles furnished by the Chinese, mention iron, pearls, silk, cotton, and silk or cotton clothes, but say nothing of furs; and it is very improbable that a country which produced silk or cotton could supply such furs as would be worth conveying to so great a distance. The only thing I can admit is, that the furs were brought by a transit trade to Europe; that is to say, the Seres obtained them from the fur countries, properly so called, or those which at present furnish sables, and again sold them to the Romans. Now this was a very circuitous route, whether we consider Serica to have been China, Siam, or the Lesser Bucharia; yet not so circuitous as that by which the Chinese obtained from the English, through Russia, the best beaver-skins brought from Canada and Hudson’s Bay.

Were we to reckon among the pelles Serum of Pliny the lucida vellera, tactu mollia Serum, mentioned by Seneca, Boethius and others, we should undoubtedly be in an error; for these may be explained by the false information which at that time was obtained partly in regard to cotton, and partly in regard to silk, and which may be seen in Solinus⁷⁴³ and others. Is it not possible that these lucida vellera may have been meant likewise by Pliny?

I have some doubts also respecting a passage of Strabo, where he relates that among the wares brought by the nomadic tribes of Europe and Asia to the Tanais, or present Azoph, at the mouth of the Don, there were slaves and furs⁷⁴⁴. It is certain that dermata may signify, not only furs, but also tanned skins. If Strabo here meant furs, I am inclined to conjecture that they were disposed of in the nearest countries, but did not come into the European trade; and the case, perhaps, was the same with the slaves mentioned in the same passage. Polybius also, among the wares brought from Pontus to Byzantium, mentions dermata⁷⁴⁵. I must, however, confess, that if I found that the Romans actually obtained dermata from Asia, I should carefully examine whether under that term skins, or even dyed leather, were not rather meant. Skins, and particularly for military purposes, they indeed procured from very distant places. Thus the Frieslanders, instead of a tax, were obliged to supply ox-hides⁷⁴⁶; and it may be proved by the testimony of various writers, that the art of giving a beautiful dye to leather is very old in Asia; and therefore that many kinds of what we call morocco was at an early period brought from thence to Europe.

On the other hand, from what is said by Ælian⁷⁴⁷, I entertain no doubt that in his time a trade in furs was carried on with Persia. To that country were sent, he says, the soft skins of the Pontic mouse, which, when sewed together, formed warm dresses. I am convinced also that more proofs might be found of the use of fur-clothing among the Persians. They employed furs likewise instead of mattresses and bolsters. Thus we are told by Plutarch⁷⁴⁸ that Pharnabazus reclined upon soft furs: and it is not improbable that the rough or thick winter gloves of the Persians, mentioned by Xenophon, were of the same material⁷⁴⁹. It is stated by modern travellers, that at present sable and ermine skins are among the most common and valuable ornaments of the Persians; and it is well known that the costume of these people is very old, because they are not exposed as we are to the influence of fickle fashion.

But the Persian skins, pelles Parthicæ or Persicæ, which are often extolled, especially in later times, on account of their beauty, do not belong to this head; though Vossius, Brisson and Gesner, consider them to have been sables. They were undoubtedly different kinds of dyed leather, of which shoes were made for princes and opulent persons. In the time of the emperor Maximianus, a Roman soldier having found a leathern purse which contained real pearls, threw away the latter and retained only the purse, because it had a beautiful colour⁷⁵⁰. Of the same kind of leather was that dyed with kermes, mentioned by Zosimus⁷⁵¹; and that which by Constantine Porphyrogenetes, where he mentions all those wares which the northern nations obtained through Constantinople, is expressly named highly-dyed Persian leather.

Of a similar kind, as appears, was the Babylonian leather. Zonaras⁷⁵² speaks of a costly tent made of it; and in the time of St. Jerome it was considered as an object of luxury. As Persian and Babylonian leather are mentioned at the same time, there is reason to think that a distinction was made in commerce between these two kinds⁷⁵³. The emperor Constantine, among the persons charged to furnish articles for the imperial wardrobe at Constantinople, and who on that account enjoyed certain immunities, mentions the parthicarii, particarii, or parthiarii⁷⁵⁴; and though we are uncertain in regard to the orthography, it may be readily conceived that these words do not allude, as Vossius says, to furriers, but to merchants who dealt in costly dyed, and perhaps painted skins, which they procured from Persia. It is well-known that at present the Persians understand the art of preparing and dyeing many kinds of leather in a more beautiful manner than the Europeans; and among these in particular are shagreen and morocco, which are still imported from the East⁷⁵⁵.

From the grounds here adduced, I am led to conjecture that the trade in furs to the southern parts of Europe had its commencement during the expeditions of the northern tribes to Italy; and I must acknowledge that I have found no older information on this subject than that furnished by Jordanes or Jornandes, who lived in the sixth century. This writer, speaking of the northern nations, mentions the Suethans, and says⁷⁵⁶, that these are the people who send to the Romans the celebrated furs; which, however, passed necessarily through the hands of many intermediate tribes. These Suethans, according to his account, inhabited a part of Scanzia, and that under this name he included Sweden, Norway, Lapland, Finland, &c. has been already proved by Mascou⁷⁵⁷. Soon after he mentions also Hanugari, whom he reckons among the Scythians; these he says were known on account of their trade with mouse-skins⁷⁵⁸.

It is too well known to require any proof, that in the oldest periods the whole riches of the northern countries consisted in furs; that these, if not the only, were the principal wares exported, and that all taxes were paid with them. Other, who lived in the ninth century, states the number of marten, rein-deer, bear and otter skins, which were delivered annually by the Finlanders and Norwegians⁷⁵⁹. When Thorolf, in the year 878, sent a ship to England with merchandise, there were among it pelles mustelinæ albæ⁷⁶⁰. I shall remark also, that so early as the third century skins and leather began to be counted by decuriæ; from which is derived the appellation decher, adopted into the English, Swedish and Danish languages, as well as the word dacra or dacrum pellium⁷⁶¹, used in the middle ages. Sables and ermines, however, are still sold by zimmern; and this appellation also is very old. A timber of hare-skins occurs about the year 1300, and unum timbrium martrinarum as early as 1207. At present a zimmer makes four dechers or twenty pairs, and in the time of George Agricola sable-skins were sold in this manner, forty in one lot⁷⁶². But a zimmer has not always been the same in all countries and at all times; at any rate in France a zimmer, timbre, was reckoned to contain sixty skins.

Before I proceed further, I must endeavour to explain the different names of furs which occur in the works of the ancients; but in this attempt I can scarcely hope to attain to great probability. The information of the ancients in regard to those species of animals with the country of which they were not acquainted, is exceedingly defective. What they relate was obtained from the accounts of merchants; and these, in all probability, through a principle of self-interest, falsified the little that they really knew. Besides, the ancient writers do not always accurately distinguish the names of the different furs, nor affix to them the same meaning; which is the less surprising, as few know how to give proper names to the principal kinds of furs even at present. It is probable that the skins of the ermine, marten, and squirrel, became at a very early period objects of commerce, and formed the chief articles in this branch of trade; but from the little known on this subject, no zoologist would venture to determine with certainty the species. He must be so candid as to admit all conjectures which he is not able to refute.

If I am not mistaken, the skin of the mouse, and particularly the Pontic or Caspian mouse, is that of which the first and most frequent mention occurs in the oldest times. That the name mus denoted at first not only that animal to which we apply it, but also all small warm-blooded quadrupeds, has been long ago remarked. In the same manner every large animal was formerly called bos. When the Romans first saw elephants they gave them the name of boves lucæ. Pausanias also calls the rhinoceros the Ethiopian ox; and Cæsar names the rein-deer, the ox with stag’s horns. The ox was the largest, as the mouse was the smallest, warm-blooded animal with which the ancients were acquainted, and therefore they called all large animals oxen, and all small ones mice⁷⁶³. It is to be observed, in explaining the ancient names of animals, that at first they had a much more extensive signification, and one must endeavour to conjecture what the animals comprehended under them had in common with each other, according to the ideas of the ancients. To words of this kind formica seems to belong, and perhaps the principal idea related to collecting and laying up; and perhaps in this manner one might be able to explain the fable of the gold-searching ants, mentioned by Herodotus. It is however often difficult to conjecture what the principal idea was. What idea did the ancients affix to the term passer (sparrow), when they called the ostrich the large Libyan or Arabian sparrow? We learn nothing more therefore from the words pelles murium, than that they were not the skins of large animals. The epithets Pontic and Caspian only show, that these wares, like many others, were brought from Pontus and the Caspian sea. From such epithets were we to determine the original country of any article used in commerce, or the place where it was first produced, we should often fall into error. Wares were frequently called Syrian, Turkish and Arabian, though it is certain that they were brought from very different countries.

What further information I have been able to find in regard to this species of animal, merely is, that its skin was exceedingly soft; that it formed a good defence against the wind, and that a great many of them were sewed together in order to make a garment⁷⁶⁴. Now, if credit be given to the account of Aristotle and Pliny, that the Pontic mouse belongs to the ruminating class of animals, how can anything characteristic be deduced from it?