Chapter III: Part 3

In the first attempts of architecture it was extremely rude, as might naturally be expected. It has, however, from time to time, as improvements have advanced, been raised to relative importance, as the education of the people progressed; and it certainly gives the best record of the mental progress of every people which can be collected. It has always been found to flourish best in free states, and when the rulers have possessed genius, virtue, and good taste. The most eminent era of Grecian architecture was when the Athenian republic was under the direction of Pericles; at this period, also, existed the first of statuaries, Praxiteles. Where that eminent artist and their admirable architects were employed, in the words of Pausanius, “they rendered the whole of Acropolis as an entire ornament.” There are various characteristic distinctions to be made in the several orders of architecture which distinguish the Grecian people. The Doric is eminent for primeval simplicity; the Tuscan embraces more ornament; the Ionic unites simplicity and elegance; but the sum of all excellence appears to be united in the Corinthian. The Composite is also a most elegant order, but appears to have added but little to the Corinthian elegance and majesty. Various nations have a great diversity of architecture; as the Egyptian, Persian (distinguished by human figures supporting entablatures), Hindostanee, Arabasque or Marisquo, which are very peculiar, generally having the walls to project most at the top, which is indicative of the natural jealousy of all oriental people; they all regarding their _women_ as their chief treasure, it appears meant for their especial protection.

A greater simplicity does not appear anywhere than in the architecture of the Druids, consisting of most extensive circles of immense stones, chiefly raised perpendicularly, with occasionally a larger stone placed upon the apex of two others horizontally.--There are in Great Britain numerous remains of these constructions: the chief are Stonehenge, near Salisbury; at Avebury, also in Wiltshire; Pomonca, in the Orkneys; Rollright, in Oxfordshire. But the most eminent spot for Druid temples was Mona, in Anglesea, in Wales. The reason for such apparently unmeaning erections will be found in their peculiar belief, in the religion they professed.

The Saxon is a very heavy order of architecture. It was used in this kingdom much in the erection of religious edifices, and is frequently found mixed with the Norman in such structures. The grand and most obvious distinction is a semi-circular arch, with massy columns, variously ornamented, and most frequently the columns which support the same arch are diversely sculptured. The chief sculptures of this kind in Britain, are Gloucester Cathedral; Malmesbury Abbey, Wilts; Sedbury Church, Herefordshire; several churches in Rutland, Lincoln, Somerset, Devon, and other counties.

There appears to us to be no order of architecture better calculated for the purpose to which it is generally adopted, than the chaste and pure Norman style, barbarously denominated Gothic. It affords a great variety of light, airy beauty, and tasteful grandeur.

In this country, the Norman order succeeded the Saxon, and we lost nothing by the exchange; for even now, that we have the entire benefit of a choice of the purest Grecian (since its revival by Inigo Jones), it is a matter of taste to be certain; but in our estimation, the chaste Norman is to be preferred to the purest Grecian, for the purposes for which it is intended; and if the means answer the ultimate end, we submit this to be the proper criterion for preference. We find it usually employed in religious edifices; it is pure, light, airy, and cheerful: and we are of opinion that the service of gratitude and thanks to the Creator demands a disposition of mind which these feelings are best calculated to inspire.

Domestic architecture is various, and chiefly regulated by the various purposes for which it is designed. Its characteristic is utility.

CHAIN-BRIDGES.

(See Frontispiece.)

It appears, from a description of bridges of suspension, communicated by R. Stephenson, civil engineer, some time ago, to the “Philosophical Journal,” that the first chain-bridge constructed in this country is believed to be one over the Tees, forming a communication between the counties of Durham and York. It is supposed, on good authority, to have been erected about 1741, and is described in the “Antiquities of Durham” as “a bridge suspended on iron chains, stretched from rock to rock, over a chasm nearly sixty feet deep, for the passage of travellers, particularly miners. This bridge is seventy feet in length, and little more than two feet broad, with a hand-rail on one side, and planked in such a manner that the traveller experiences all the tremulous motion of the chain, and sees himself suspended over a roaring gulf, on an agitated and restless gangway, to which few strangers dare trust themselves.” In 1816-17, two or three bridges of iron were constructed; the first, by Mr. Lees, an extensive woollen manufacturer, at Galashiels, in Scotland. This experiment, although made with slender wire, and necessarily imperfect in its construction, deserves to be noticed, as affording a practical example of the tenacity of iron so applied.--These wire bridges were suspended not upon the catemarian principle so successfully adopted in the larger works subsequently undertaken, but by means of diagonal braces, radiating from their points of suspension on either side towards the centre of the roadway. The unfortunate fabric next mentioned was constructed on this defective principle. Among the earliest practical exhibitions of this novel architecture in the United Kingdom, may be mentioned the uncommonly elegant and light chain-bridge which was thrown over the Tweed at Dryburgh, in 1817, by the Earl of Buchan, for the accommodation of foot passengers. Its length, between the points of suspension, was two hundred and sixty-one feet, being considered the greatest span of any bridge in the kingdom. This useful structure, the theme of such just applause, and which harmonised so finely with the far-famed scenery of Dryburgh Abbey, was entirely destroyed by a tremendous gale of wind, at the beginning of the year following its erection.--This bridge was subsequently restored upon a more secure system.

CLOCKS.

The invention of clocks, such as are now in use, is ascribed to Pacificus, Archdeacon of Verona, who died in 846; but they were not known in England before the year 1368. They were ultimately improved by the application of pendulums, in 1657, by Huygens, a Dutch astronomer and mathematician. Although Dr. Beckmann differs in some slight degree from the previous relation concerning clocks, yet he says, “It is sufficiently apparent that clocks, moved by wheels and weights, began certainly to be used in the monasteries of Europe, about the eleventh century.” He does not think, however, that Europe has a claim to the honour of the invention, but that it is rather to be ascribed to the Saracens; this conjecture, he confesses, is chiefly supported by what Trithemius tells us, of one which was sent by the Sultan of Egypt to Frederick II., in 1232. He thinks that the writers of that century speak of clocks as though they had been then well known; he adds, that in the fourteenth century, mention is made of the machine of Richard de Wallingford, which has hitherto been considered as the oldest clock known. The fabricator of this machine called it _Albion_.

It appears that clocks had been hitherto shut up in monasteries and other religious houses, and that it was not till after this time they were employed for more general purposes, as the convenience of cities, &c. The first instance on record, that has been yet noticed, occurs where Herbert, Prince of Carrara, caused the first clock that was ever publicly exposed, to be erected at Padua. It was erected by John Dondi, whose family afterwards, in consequence, had the pronomen of Horologia assigned them, in remembrance of this circumstance: it is also mentioned on the tombstone of the artist. The family of Dondi now followed the profession of manufacturing clocks; for his son, John Dondi, constructed one upon improved principles.

The first clock at Bologna was put up in the year 1356. Some time after the year 1364, Charles V., surnamed the Wise, King of France, caused a clock to be placed in the tower of his palace, by Henry de Wyck, whom he had invited from Germany for the purpose, because there was then at Paris no artist of that kind, and to whom he assigned a salary of six sols per diem, with free lodgings in the Tower. Towards the end of that century, probably about the year 1370, Strasburg had a clock. About the same period, Courtray was celebrated for its clock, which the Duke of Burgundy carried away, A. D. 1382. A public clock was erected in the Altburg gate at Spire, in 1395, the works of which cost fifty-one florins.

The greater part of the principal cities of Europe, however, at this period, had clocks without striking. Clocks could not be procured but at a very great expense: of this, an instance occurred in the city of Auxerre, in the year 1483, when the magistrates being desirous of a clock, but discovering that it would cost more money than they thought themselves justified in expending on their own authority, applied to the Emperor Charles VIII. for leave to employ a portion of the public funds for that purpose.

In 1462, a public clock was put up in the church of the Virgin Mary at Nuremberg.

At Venice a public clock was put in the year 1497. In the same century an excellent clock was put up for Cosmo de Medici, by Lorenzo, a Florentine.

Having thus mentioned their origin in various places, until they came to ornament the religious houses, the palaces of kings, and the chief European cities, it now remains for us to take some notice of their existence in our own country for public use. From public documents still extant, it appears that so great was their expense considered in those early times of their introduction, that it was only the powerful and the rich who could procure them. We discover that the first clock for public and lay purposes in England was one erected on the north side of Old Palace Yard, Westminster, on which was this inscription, _Discite justitiam moniti_; which inscription is said to have been preserved many years after the clock-house had been decayed.

It is asserted that this clock was placed in that situation, for the purpose of being heard by the members of the courts of law; and the occasion which produced its existence is thus recorded. It was the produce of a fine levied upon the lord chief justice of the court of King’s Bench, in the reign of Edward I. A. D. 1288, of whom it appears by a book called the “Year-Book,” that this magistrate had been fined 800 marks for making an alteration in a record, wherein a defendant had been fined 13_s._ 4_d._, and he, the chief justice, made it appear to be 6_s._ 8_d._ instead of that, the larger sum.

Notoriety, however, was attached to this transaction from the following circumstances. First, it appears to have been one of three questions put by Richard III. to his judges, with whom he was closeted in the Inner Star Chamber, to take their opinions on three points of law. The second question was, “Whether a justice of the peace, who had enrolled an indictment which had been negatived by the grand jury, among the true bills, might be punished for the abuse of his office?” On this question a diversity of opinion arose among the judges, some of whom supposed a magistrate could not be prosecuted for what he might have done; whilst others contended that he might, and cited the case of the lord chief justice above mentioned: so far was the answer of the judges strictly proper and historically true. The third circumstance to which we have alluded, and which is most material to our present question, is the application of the fine. It appears that it was expended in the construction of a clock, which was erected on the north side of Old Palace Yard; so that the judges, barristers, and students could not enter or leave the court, without having an opportunity of being reminded of the punishment of the chief justice, for presuming to violate the impartial duty of his high office; nor could they even hear it strike, whilst upon the throne of justice, without having his case repeated in their ears; thereby acting as a constant remembrancer, intimating they were to administer justice more than mercy.

Sir Edward Coke observes that 800 marks were actually entered upon the roll, so that it is extremely probable he had himself seen the record.

This clock was considered so important during the reign of Henry VI., that we find that the king gave the charge of keeping it, with its appurtenances, to William Warley, dean of St. Stephen’s, with the pay of sixpence per diem, to be received at the exchequer.

The clock of St. Mary’s, Oxford, was also furnished in 1523, out of fines imposed upon the students of that university.

With respect to the clock procured from the fine of the lord chief justice, we must also observe that its motto appears to relate to that circumstance; but though it might be said that it might relate to a dial as well as to a clock--a material observation to our present inquiry--yet, with respect to its present absence, it should be noticed, that it is probable that clock was a very indifferent one, but from its antiquity and the tradition attending it, was permitted to remain till the time of Elizabeth; then being quite decayed, a dial might have been substituted upon the same clock-house, bearing the very singular motto which, however originally applied, clearly alludes to such a circumstance as reported of the lord chief justice. This dial is placed on the very site where the clock-house stood.

But it is said by Derham, in his “Artificial Clockmaker,” that the oldest clock in this kingdom is in Hampton Court Palace, marked with the letters N. O., presumed to have been the initials of the maker’s name, of the date of 1540; but that author is evidently mistaken, in alleging that to be the oldest, because the Oxford clock bears a date seventeen years anterior to that period. With respect to the initials, or whatever they may be, we do not consider them of the smallest importance.

From Shakspeare’s “Othello” it is proved that the ancient name of this instrument was Horologe; which various passages in our poets and old authors establish:--

“He’ll watch the horologe a double set,
If drink rock not his cradle.”

Chaucer also says of a cock,

“Full sickerer was his crowing in his loge,
As is a clock, or any abbey _orloge_;”

which tends to show that, in his time, clocks had been confined to religious houses.

So Lydgate’s prologue to the story of Thebes:--

“I will myself be your orologere
To-morrow early.”

With respect to our modern clocks, it would be presumption in us to say one word, as there is not an individual but knows as much about them, as we could tell him. We have fulfilled our intention in giving this historical account, which we are persuaded will afford some information. We will now proceed to

WATCHES,

Which are not of so great antiquity; as it is only about 1490, mention is made of watches, which first occurs in the Italian poems of Gaspar Visconti. Dominico Maria Manni says the inventor was Lorenzo a Vulparia, a native of Florence.

One might naturally be inclined to believe that the honour of original invention is duly demanded by the whole Germanic people, from the claim of the invention of watches being aspired to by the Nurembergians; as Doppelenayer gravely alleges they were first invented by a person residing in that city, in the sixteenth century, of the name of Peter Hale; and, perhaps, he has no better foundation for his conjecture, than that watches were at first of an oval shape, and were called Nuremberg eggs.

Shakspeare, in his “Twelfth Night,” speaking of a _watch_, has the following expression, used by Malvolio: “I frown the while; and perchance wind up my watch, or play with some rich jewel.” Also, the Priest, in answer to Olivia,

“Since when, my _watch_ hath told me, toward my grave
I have travelled but two hours.”

The following observations appear to sanction our opinion of the early existence of those machines in this country. Dr. Derham, in his “Artificial Clockmaker,” published in 1714, mentions a watch of Henry VIII., which at the period he wrote was in good order. Indeed, Dr. Demainbray says that he had heard Sir Isaac Newton and Demoire both speak of that watch.

An anecdote is related of the Emperor Charles V., contemporary with Henry VIII., which it appears has reference to the policy of Europe at that day. It is said, the emperor, after dinner, used to sit with several watches on the table, with his bottle in the centre. After the prince’s retirement to the abbey of St. Just, he still continued to amuse himself with keeping them in order. From his inability to effect this correctly, it is reported he drew the rational reflection, _that it was impossible to effect what he had attempted--the regulation of the policy of Europe_.

It also appears that many watches of that day struck the hours. The “Memoirs of Literature” report that such watches having been stolen from Charles V. and Louis XI. whilst they were in a crowd, the thieves were detected from their striking.

It also appears from the evidence of certain watches of ancient construction formerly held by Sir Ashton Lever, and also by Mr. Ingham Forster, that _catgut_ usually supplied the place of a chain in ancient watches; also that they were of a smaller size than now made, and generally of an oval form.

Imperfections of this nature, and probably other causes, might have rendered their truth uncertain, and this most probably precluded their general use, until the latter end of the reign of Elizabeth. The instances we have shown will prove they were generally known, and perhaps used at the time of Shakspeare writing the “Twelfth Night.” And in the first edition of Harrington’s “Orlando Furioso,” published in 1591, the frontispiece represents the author with what appears to be a watch, although the engraving is extremely indistinct; moreover, the inscription to which engraving, of _Il Tempo passo_, clearly indicates the same thing.

Charles I., in 1631, incorporated the clockmakers company, and by charter, which prohibits clocks, watches, and alarums from being imported; which circumstance proves, that the English at this period, had no need of the aid of foreign ingenuity in this branch of mechanism.

We are told that Guy Fawkes and Percy were detected in the third year of James I., with a watch about them, which they had purchased, “to try conclusions for the long and short burning of the touchwood,” (in the words of the time) which was prepared to give fire to the train of gunpowder.

The most material improvement introduced in this branch of mechanical knowledge took place in the addition of pendulums, by Huygens, as applied to clocks; for which conception he was indebted to Galileo, which that philosopher adopted for measuring time, he having taken the idea from observing the vibrations of a lamp in a church. This reign also boasts of the production of repeating-watches in England; first fabricated under the direction of the celebrated Dr. Hook, and manufactured by Tompion.

An anecdote is related of the attention paid to watches by James II., recorded by Derham, in the “Artificial Clockmaker:” One Barlow had procured a patent, in conjunction with the lord chief justice Allebone, for repeaters; but a person of the name of Quare making one at the same time, upon principles he had entertained before the patent was granted to Barlow, the king tried both in person, and gave the preference to Quare’s, and caused it to be notified in the gazette.

In the next reign, the reputation of British watchmakers had increased so much, that an act was passed by parliament, enacting that British-made watches should be marked with the maker’s name, in order to preserve the reputation of this branch of British manufacture from coming to discredit in foreign markets.

Thus we have given a general outline of the history of this branch of mechanics, for a period of nearly a thousand years, from the first invention of clocks by Pacificus of Verona, in 846, to the beginning of last century, since which period they have become an article of such general use to require no comment from us. We have noticed the various improvements in the order in which they occurred, among which the most striking feature appears to be the addition of the pendulums, as serving to regulate the motion of the machine; from its given length, certain weight and uniform vibration, it must be conceived to have been a happy thought in Galileo, for the admeasurement of time, and its application to this branch of mechanics was no less fortunate in Huygens. To discover the first invention of time, we will require to look back for upwards of two thousand years, at which period we will find

WATER-CLOCKS.

These are called Clepsydræ. Vitruvius, the Roman architect and mechanist, attributes the invention of the water-clock to Ctesibus of Alexandria, who flourished in the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes, about two hundred and forty-five years before the Christian era. The same author says, the machine was first introduced at Rome, two hundred and fifty seven years previous to the Christian era. There is reason to believe it was first introduced at Rome into courts of justice, from Greece, as it had been originally used in Greece for this purpose; the Roman orators being guided in the time they occupied the court, by this instrument, as we may learn from this expression of Cicero, “_Latrare ad clepsydram_.” Cicero also informs us, that it was first introduced into courts of justice, in the third consulate of Pompey.

It has been discovered that the inventions of Egypt, Chaldea, and other Oriental countries constantly travelled to Rome and the West. Long since the respective periods previously mentioned, has the honour of this invention been claimed by Burgundians, Bolognese, and other Italians; sometimes by Frenchmen, but chiefly by Germans.

Their claim for invention seems to be questionable in numerous instances, whatever it may be for improvement; they certainly cannot, consistently with what we have stated, be considered as the _first_ inventors; although there is nothing to be alleged against these respective people being the discoverers of designs which had a previous existence unknown to them.

With equal or much more propriety might the Arabians, in point of time (could that be of consequence) be considered as inventors of this machine; and they are well known to possess the least claim to original invention of any people. They, however, have a merit, notwithstanding: but it is of a negative kind; for those arts, sciences, &c. which were (by chance) saved from the destruction of their bigoted ignorance, and which, when the fortune of war had thrown into their hands those pure designs of intellectual Greece, mere accident had wrested from their zealous fury. These they transmitted to a more ingenious people as pure as they had received them; but upon precisely as good grounds as the before-named Europeans claimed this _original_ invention, might the Arabians have assumed that honour. For we read that Haroun al Raschid, Caliph of Bagdad, then the chief of the Saracen empire, sent as a present to Charlemagne, a clock of curious workmanship, which was put into motion by a clepsydra; which instrument is said, by Dr. Adams, “to have been used by the ancients to measure time by water running out of a vessel.”

It consists of a cylinder divided into small cells, and suspended by a thread fixed to its axis in a frame, on which the hour distances, found by trial, are marked out. As the water flows from one cell into another, it changes slowly the centre of gravity of the cylinder, and puts it in motion.

The form of this instrument is thus described by Dr. Beckmann:--

“The most common kinds of these water-clocks, however, correspond in this, that the water issued drop by drop through a hole of the vessel, and fell into another, in which a light body, that floated, marked the height of the water as it rose, and by these means the time that had elapsed.”

The most improved form the same instrument has acquired, is thus described, by the same author, from one in his own possession.

“Amongst the newest improvements added to this machine may be reckoned an alarum, which consists of a bell and small wheels, like that of a clock that strikes the hours, screwed to the top of the frame in which the cylinder is suspended. The axis of the cylinder, at the hour when one is desirous of being awakened, pushes down a small crank, which, by letting fall a weight, puts the alarum in motion. A dial plate with a handle is also placed over the frame.”

In respect to the invention of clepsydræ, we should think the original inventor took his first idea from the use of an instrument common in Egypt, which that people called a _Canob_, or Nilometer, being a large stone vessel of the shape of a sarcophagus, into which water was daily poured, by proper officers, during the increase of the Nile, to show the people whether they had a prospect of plenty, or were to expect a scarcity in the ensuing year. As the fall of the water, after it had risen to a due height, was of equal importance to them; so the water was suffered to run out proportionably to its decrease in the river, being ascertained by just and equal marks which they generally well understood.

_Vitrum horae_ had also been invented to describe the progress of time. These were conical hour-glasses, in which were placed a portion of sand; the glasses were joined together at the apex of the cone, with a small aperture of communication between the two.--From the glass, in which the sand is deposited, it dropped, grain by grain, into the sand below, standing upon its flat basis. These machines are called hour-glasses, and well known. We have been unable to discover any account of the origin of this instrument; but, from its simplicity, it admits of no improvement. It is also believed this had its origin in a convent.

SPINNING.

The necessity for human clothing must be so obvious, we should think, at nearly the first existence of our race, that two opinions upon that subject cannot exist. For, admitting the region where our first parents were stationed was more genial to life than these, our northern countries, yet the difference in temperature between the heat of noon-day, and the chilly damps of night, must be obvious to every one who has resided in, or has read of, tropical climates. Therefore, from necessity, we contend, our first parents could not have dispensed with the benefit of clothing. However, independent of the necessity of the thing, the Jewish History informs us that the first man, Adam, and his wife, in consequence of their unfortunate disobedience and positive violation of the commands of their Divine Creator, knew of their own nakedness; and, therefore, they were ashamed to answer to the sacred summons. This they confessed, with a simplicity congenial to truth, and in the same moment, frankly owned the cause; answering to the awful interrogatory of “Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?”--“The woman, whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” However, we are previously informed that, “the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves aprons.”

It should be observed, that the leaf of the Banyan, or Indian fig, is probably here meant; if it is, the luxurious leaf of this tree is about three feet long, and proportionably wide; therefore, we may rationally conclude, much art was not required; probably a thorn might supply the place of a needle, and a blade of grass would do for a thread.

Afterwards, we are told, in the same chapter,--“Unto Adam, also to his wife, did the Lord Jehovah make coats of skins, and clothed them.” The preceding is the earliest account of humanity; at the same time, it also furnishes the most ancient relation of the original of human clothing. From hieroglyphical inscriptions still extant, the most ancient inhabitants of Egypt wore sometimes clothing made of feathers, fastened together; sometimes of shells, also attached to each other; but the most general ancient clothing consisted of the skins of various animals. So is Hercules, and many of the heroes, clothed, in antique statuary. Although the sacred history is silent on this head, we may, perhaps, by inference, arrive at some clue or thread to guide us through the labyrinth of uncertainty.

Accordingly we find in the first passages, which will admit of constructive inference, that thread, of some sort, must, of necessity, have had existence:--“And Ada bare Jubal: he was the father of such as dwell in _tents_, and of such as have cattle.”--Gen. iv., 20. Now, we submit, the inference of not only spinning, but also of weaving, and even sewing, must be conceded, before we can conceive the existence of tents. The cloth whereof they were made at that period, it is probable, was of the fleece of sheep; because of the early existence of woollen cloth among the Greeks, we have no doubt, from the following and numerous other passages in their poets; and also from the practice of Tyrian artisans, who were, we know, generally and confessedly eminent for their dying the imperial purple, and other scarce, valuable, and beautiful colours; and no substance better receives, or so well retains the most splendid of colours than does wool. But Homer speaks expressively in point, where, in his “Iliad,” he expresses the truce which took place between the belligerent armies of Greeks and Trojans. After the defeat of Paris by Menelaus, and where the laughter-loving goddess, Venus, is said to have rescued her favourite from the fate he deserved to find; after she had conveyed the recreant hero from the field to his apartment, she then, like a true friend to matrimonial infidelity, goes in search of the Spartan queen, for the purpose of bringing the lovers together. She discovered the beautiful adultress on the walls of the city, where she had been describing to Priam, and his ancient nobles, the Trojan councillors, the various persons of the heroes of Greece. Upon this occasion, Venus, to use the language of the poet (as translated by Pope), assumes a disguise.

“To her, beset by Trojan beauties, came,
In borrowed form, the laughter-loving dame;
She seemed an ancient maid, well skill’d to cull
The snowy fleece, and wind the twisted wool.”

The labours of Penelope, Helena herself, and innumerable passages in the works of the poet, all tend to confirm the fact.

That _linen_ had also an early existence is proved at a very anterior period of the Jewish history. They had even fine linen previous to the construction of the utensils used in sacred worship; as, in Exodus, an ephod of linen is expressly mentioned; likewise in the xxvth chapter, 4th verse of that book, fine linen is expressly enumerated among those presents that the people were expected to offer freely to the Lord Jehovah. Whence we are justified in inferring they had most probably learned in Egypt to carry its structure to great perfection.

We have linen mentioned likewise, in Homer, upon the breach of the truce between the Grecians and Trojans with their auxiliary forces. On Menelaus having been wounded by an arrow from the bow of Pandarus, where the poet sweetly sings--

“But thee, Atrides, in that dangerous hour,
The gods forgot not, nor thy guardian power,
Pallas assists, (and weakened in its force),
Diverts the weapons from its destined course;
So, from her babe, when slumber seals his eye,
The watchful mother wafts the envenom’d fly.
Just where his belt, with golden buckles join’d,
Where LINEN folds the double corslet lin’d.
She turn’d the shaft, which, hissing from above,
Passed the broad belt, and through the corslet drove;
The folds it pierc’d, the plaited LINEN tore
And raz’d the skin, and drew the purple gore.”

From what appears in the subsequent, as well as the former, part of this article, we submit, that the general manufacture of cloth, both woollen and linen, has been established; and if this is made out, the prior existence of the other subsidiary arts of spinning, weaving, &c. cannot be denied.

There are hieroglyphical symbols in the British Museum, which denote the various operations of the manufacture of cloths; and upon a monument upwards of three thousand six hundred years old.

Numerous arts have been discovered by mere accident. We are told, the very valuable operation of _feldt_making was discovered by a British sovereign, whose feet being always cold in the winter, he had wool put into his shoes; the moisture there contracted, the natural heat of the body, with the action to which this wool was exposed, between the foot and the shoe, caused the fleecy substance to consolidate; whence the origin of that very necessary article, the _Hat_.

STOCKING MANUFACTURE.

The invention to which this article refers, affords a warm subject for panegyric. That clothing for the feet be warm, medical writers have in all ages recommended, and truly upon the most rational as well as philosophic and experimental practice; the feet, lying the most remote of any member from the heart, require, and particularly by people in years, to be kept warm, in order for their present comfort, as well as to promote the essential evacuation of superfluous humours, by perspiration, without which no frame can be healthy. So strongly is this precept impressed in our national moral habits, that it has formed a general maxim for the preservation of health. Even Thomas Parr is said to have observed, upon being asked to what cause he attributed the protraction of his life, “To keep the head cool by temperance, and the feet warm by exercise, to eat only when hunger required satisfaction, and to drink only when thirsty.” We should suppose that this recipe would be at least worth a waggon load of the puffed quack pills which are palmed upon the public as made from a recipe left by that venerable man.

The art of knitting nets is one of great antiquity, as those nets used by the Hebrews, as well as by the Greeks, are conceived to be similar to those used in the present day. It was thought by Ovid, in his sixth “Metamorphosis,” that the public were indebted to the spider for the origin of this ingenious invention; which would indeed seem probable, as it appears that the insect is prompted to be thus ingenious for the gratification of its natural wants, the web serving as a net or gin for the capture of flies and other small insects which supply it with food. And if our memory serve us, we recollect that the poet also, speaking of flies, observes that the web of the spider serves to secure the weak flies only, whilst the strong break it and escape; alluding to the influence of wealth and power to pierce through those laws which were made for the protection of the weak against the encroachments and violence offered by the strong. The author of Job, in the eighteenth chapter and ninth verse, mentions gins. However, in knitting stockings, the operation, as well as the effect, is essentially different from knitting nets. In the latter the twine is knotted into distinct meshes, which are secured by knots; in the former, the entire substance is produced without knots. To this distinction is to be ascribed the reason why knit stockings may become unravelled. In the other species the knots not only prevent the material being taken apart, but they also render the nets sufficiently strong to prevent even vigorous fish from escaping, yet being so capacious as to permit little fish to escape with the water.

The art of knitting is not now, by any means, so general as it was formerly. It then unquestionably rated among the number of female accomplishments; and it is certainly rather wonderful, because when the mechanism is once obtained, it requires no exertion of intellect to practise it; it may be carried on while sitting, walking, and talking, or in almost every situation to which ordinary life is called; and when it is considered that its produce adds to the comfort of the indigent, to the advantage of the poor,--and that to persons in easy circumstances habitual industry increases their happiness, these things considered, it is with wonder and regret we see it fallen into disuse; particularly as it is an occupation suited to every age and capacity, which the infant is strong enough to practise; and even in the infirmity and weakness of age it is practicable. We certainly do hope and trust these observations may invite the attention of those meritorious individuals who have the direction and management of our scholastic establishments, to revive the practice.

Fishing nets are also in use among the most barbarous nations of this period, as various navigators have satisfactorily proved; frequently made of rude materials, it is true--some of the bark of trees, and others of the beards of whales, besides a variety of other articles which the more refined inhabitants of civilised countries would never think of using for such a purpose.

The art of making nets, or ornaments of fine yarn, is said not to be a modern invention, it having been practised for hangings, and articles of dress and ornament. In the middle ages, it appears, the clergy wore netting of silk over their clerical robes. Professor Beckmann also says, he suspects those transparent dresses were used by ladies more than four hundred years ago, to cover those beauties they still wish to be visible.

The invention for making coverings for the legs, of this manufacture, is, we understand, of much later invention. It is well known that the Romans and the ancient nations had no particular covering for their legs. Indeed the necessity was not so urgent with the inhabitants of warm climates, as with those in our northern regions, who, we find, generally covered not only the feet, but the legs, thighs, and loins, with the same garment. Such, there is reason to conclude, were the trews, or trowsers, anciently worn by the Scotch, but not knit hose, which the following lines, from an old song, will help to prove:

“In days whan gude King Robert rang,
His trews they cost but half a croun:
He said they were a groat o’er dear,
And ca’d the tailor thief and loun.”

A celebrated author on antiquities says, “It is probable the art of knitting stockings was first found out in the sixteenth century; but the time of the invention is doubtful.” He continues, “Savary appears to have been the first person who hazarded a conjecture that this art is a Scottish invention, because when the French stocking-knitters became so numerous as to form a guild, they 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.” This St. Fiacre, it appears, was the son of Eugenius, said to have been a Scottish king in the seventh century; and Fiacre lived as a hermit at Meaux, in France; in the Roman calendar, his name is opposite to the 30th of August.

More probable, however, is the opinion in this country which respectable writers support among them. We are informed by the author of the “History of the World,” that Henry VIII., who reigned from 1509 to 1547, and who was fond of show and magnificence, at first wore woollen stockings; till by a singular occurrence he received a pair of silk knit stockings from Spain. His son Edward VI., who succeeded him on the throne, obtained by means of his merchant, Thomas Gresham, a pair of long Spanish knit silk stockings; this present was at that time highly prized. Queen Elizabeth, in the third year of her reign, A. D. 1561, received by her silk-woman, named Montague, a pair of knit silk stockings, and afterwards refused to wear any other kind.

Stowe also relates, in his “General Chronicle of England,” that the Earl of Pembroke was the first nobleman who wore worsted knit stockings. In the year 1564, William Ridor, 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, having borrowed them, made a pair exactly like them; these were the first stockings that were knit in England, from woollen yarn. From this it would appear, that knit stockings were first introduced into England in the reign of Henry VIII., and that they were brought from Spain to this country; and probability appears to favour the belief that they were originally the produce of either that country or Italy. Should this be the case, it has been conceived by Professor Beckmann, that they came originally from Arabia to Spain.

The investigation with respect to the feigned productions of Rowley, published by the unfortunate Thomas Chatterton, arose from the mention of knitting, in a passage of those poems; it being contended that knit hose were unknown in the days of Rowley. The passage alluded to occurs in the tragedy of “Ella:”--

“She sayde, as herr whytte hands whytte hosen were knyttinge,
Whatte pleasure ytt ys to be married!”

A like ordeal took place with respect to Macpherson’s Ossian from a similar reason, the mention of the sun’s reflection setting on a glass window: now the existence of Ossian being contemporary with that of Julius Cæsar, it was contended that at that period it was not customary to glaze windows.

The Johnsonian faction set about that business in a very unsystematic manner: they should have procured some well qualified Erse scholar to have gone into those wilds where Macpherson declared he collected his materials from oral traditionary recitals, and have heard the poems themselves from the mouths of the aged inhabitants. If the traces of them could not have been found, they might then have ascribed the superior honour to Macpherson of writing a work that Greece, or Rome, in the splendour of literary glory, never surpassed, for many poetical beauties.

The people of Scotland, in the beginning of the sixteenth century, had, in the proper sense of the word, breeches; and wore a kind of stockings, their hose coming only to the knees; their stockings were made of linen or woollen, and breeches of hemp.

It is supposed that these particular articles of dress were also common in England, at and after that time, for in the year 1510, Henry VIII. appeared upon a public occasion, with his attendants, in dresses of the following description:--“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,” &c. There may be occasion to suppose the upper parts of the hose were in separate pieces, as they were of different colours. Hollinshed, also speaking of another festival says, “The garments of six of them were of strange cuts, every cut _knit_ with points of gold, and tassels of the same, their hosen cut in and tied likewise.”

In A. D. 1530, the word _knit_ appears to have been quite common in England, for John Palsgrave, a 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 of stockings.

In the household book of a noble family in the reign of Henry VIII., kept during the life of Sir Thomas L’Estrange, Knight of Hunstanton, Norfolk, by his Lady, Ann, daughter of Lord Vaux, there are the following entries, whence the price of those articles at that period are ascertained:--

1533. 25 H. 8. 7 Sept. Peyd for 4 peyr of knytt hose--viii _s._

1538. 30 H. 8. 3 Oct. ---- 2 peyr of knytt hose--i _s._

It is observed that the first four pairs were for Sir Thomas, and the latter for his children.

Nevertheless, in the reign of Mary, i.e. 1558, many wore cloth hose, as is evidenced in the following anecdote of Dr. Sands, who was afterwards Archbishop of York. Being in the Tower, he had permission for a tailor to come and take an order for a pair of hose. This serves to prove the veracity of Stowe, that stockings were not an article manufactured in England generally, we suppose, till six years afterwards. “Dr. Sands, on his going to bed in Hurleston’s house, he 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 into 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 his hose 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, ‘j 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 Doctor Sands, them j made in the Tower.’”

In a catalogue of the revenues of the Bishop of St. Asaph, it is stated, “The bishop of that diocese was entitled, as a perquisite, upon the death of any beneficed clergyman, to his best coat, jerkin, doublet, and breeches. Item, his hose or nether stockings, shoes, and garters.”

About 1557, knitting must have become common, for Harrison, in his description of the indigenous produce of this island, says, the bark of the alder tree was used by the peasants’ wives for dying stockings which they had knitted.

Hollinshed also informs us, that about 1579, when Queen Elizabeth was at Norwich, “upon the stage there stood at one end eight small women children spinning worsted yarn, and at the other end as many knitting worsted yarn into hose.”

Silk stockings are said, in consequence of their high price, for a long time to have been worn only upon grand occasions. Henry II. of France, wore them for the first time, on the marriage of his sister with the Duke of Savoy in the year 1559.

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, because she considered them to be too gay. Anno 1569, when the privy-councillor Barthold von Mandelsoh, who had been envoy to many diets and courts, appeared on a week-day with silk stockings, which he had brought from Italy, the Margrave John of Austria said to him, “Barthold, I have silk stockings also; but I wear them only on Sundays and holidays.”

The knitting stockings with wires, called _weaving_, has been thought to bear a resemblance to the wire work in screens of churches. However, the invention of the stocking loom is thought more worthy of attention, because it is alleged to have been the production of a single person, and perfected at one trial; his name, and the exact period is ascertained; and, because it is founded upon a similar incident to that of the beauteous Corinthian maid, elsewhere mentioned, as the introducer of painting in Greece; we bestow a particular attention upon this incident which produced the stocking loom, trusting our fair readers will favour us with their attention, when they are informed it is ascribed to Love.

It is a complicated piece of machinery, consisting of no fewer than two thousand pieces; it could not have been discovered accidentally, but must have been the result of deep combination and profound sagacity.

Under the usurpation of Cromwell, the stocking-knitters of London presented a petition, requesting permission to establish a guild. In this petition they gave a circumstantial account of their profession, of its rise, progress, and importance. No doubt can exist but that in this document the petitioners rendered the best, and probably a true account of the origin and progress of their trade, that of stocking weaving being then scarcely fifty years old. The circumstances they stated being then within memory, any misrepresentation would have militated against them, and could have been easily contradicted. In Deering’s account of Nottingham, this petition is found. In that town the loom was first employed, where it has given wealth to many.

From this account it appears the inventor’s name was William Lee, a native of Woodborough, a village about seven miles distant from Nottingham, in which the following passage occurs: “Which trade is properly styled frame work-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 anciently for public use practised in this nation than this,) but only in the number of needles, at an instant working in this, more than in the other by a hundred for one, set in an engine or frame composed of above two thousand pieces of smith’s, joiner’s and turner’s work, after so artificial and exact a manner that, by the judgment 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.”

The inventor of this ingenious machine was heir to a considerable freehold estate, and a graduate of St. John’s College, Cambridge. Being, it is said, deeply enamoured of a lovely young country-girl, who, during his frequent visits, paid more attention to her work, which was knitting, than to her lover or his proposals, he endeavoured to find out a machine which might facilitate and forward the operation of knitting, and by these means afford more leisure to the object of his affections to converse with him. Love, indeed, is confessed to be fertile in inventions, and has been the efficient passion which has perfected many inventions for which the gratitude of the world is due; but a machine so complex, so wonderful in its effects, would seem to require a longer time than was probably allowed, and a cooler judgment than a lover’s to construct such mechanism. But even should the cause appear problematical, there cannot exist a doubt but the real inventor was Mr. William Lee, of Woodborough, in Nottinghamshire.

Deering says expressly, that Lee made the first stocking-loom in the year 1589; this account has also been adopted by various English writers. In the Stocking-weaver’s Hall, London, is an old painting, in which Lee is represented pointing out his loom to a female knitter, who is standing near him; and below is seen an inscription with the date 1589, the period of the invention. “The ingenious William Lee, Master of Arts of St. John’s College, Cambridge, devised this profitable art for stockings, (but being despised, went to France,) yet of iron to himself, but to us and others of gold; in memory of whom this is here painted.”

Lee set up an establishment at Calverton, a village five miles from Nottingham, but met with no success. In this situation he showed his work to Queen Elizabeth; from that princess he requested some assistance, his work having embarrassed rather than assisted him; but instead of meeting with that remuneration to which his genius and invention so well entitled him, he was discouraged and discountenanced. It need not, therefore, excite surprise that Lee accepted the invitation of Henry IV. of France, who having heard of the invention, promised him a magnificent reward if he would carry it to France. He took nine journeymen, and several looms to Rouen, where he worked with much approbation; but the king being shortly after assassinated, and internal commotions taking place, the concern got into difficulties, and Lee died in poverty at Paris. A knowledge of the machine was brought back to England by some of the workmen who had emigrated with Lee, and who established themselves in Nottinghamshire, which still continues the principal seat of the manufacture.