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 bodies[712]. 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 not[713].” 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 Greece[714], 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 forefathers[715]. The heroes even of the Grecian
fabulous history clothed themselves in the skins of the most terrible
animals[716], 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 _pelliti_[717], and Valerius Maximus says[718],
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 rustics[719], or employed in the time
of war[720]. 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
felted[721]. 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 scriptures[722]. 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 revolution[723]. 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 Wachter[724] 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 purpose[725].
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 trade[726]. 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 ermine[727]. 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 rate[728].
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-skins[729]; 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-skin[730].
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 belong[731].
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 Tertullian[732]
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 clownishness[733]. Thus, a posture
inadvertently assumed, exposed Philip to reproach, as we are told by
Plutarch[734]; 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 clothes[735].” 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 sickness[736]. They, however, became afterwards more
common, so that by Ulpian they are reckoned among the ordinary articles
of dress[737]. 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
century[738]. 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 breeches[739].
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 it[740], 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 Böttiger[741], from
which it appears that furs were reckoned among the articles obtained
at that time from the Seres[742]. 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 Solinus[743] 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 furs[744]. 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 _dermata_[745]. 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-hides[746]; 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 Ælian[747], 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 Plutarch[748] 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
material[749]. 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 colour[750].
Of the same kind of leather was that dyed with kermes, mentioned by
Zosimus[751]; 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. Zonaras[752]
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 kinds[753]. 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 _parthiarii_[754]; 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 East[755].
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 says[756], 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
Mascou[757]. Soon after he mentions also _Hanugari_, whom he reckons
among the Scythians; these he says were known on account of their trade
with mouse-skins[758].
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 Norwegians[759]. When
Thorolf, in the year 878, sent a ship to England with merchandise,
there were among it _pelles mustelinæ albæ_[760]. 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 pellium_[761], 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 lot[762].
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
mice[763]. 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 garment[764]. 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?
Those who wish to afford more room for conjecture might, from a
passage of St. Jerome, render it probable that this kind of fur had
the same smell as musk. Musk indeed was then known; but is it not
possible that this father may have considered the musk animal to be
a mouse, as Conrad Gesner suspected? To me it is more probable that
he was acquainted with the musk bags used in commerce, and named them
_peregrini muris olentes pelliculæ_. It however cannot be proved by
this passage, that the skin of the musk animal was purchased for fur
clothing on account of its smell. For, in the first place, the skin
of this animal, with the hair on it, has not a musky smell; and this
is known not only from the description given of it, but is proved by
a skin which I obtained in a very fresh state. In the second place,
this animal is as large as a deer half a year old; the size therefore
will not warrant the use of the diminutive _pellicula_. And, in the
third place, the skin does not afford valuable fur. The hair is thick;
almost bristly, and so tender that it breaks with the least force.
These skins are used only by the natives of the country where they are
produced, for caps and winter clothing; but when they have been freed
from the hair, and tanned white, they form leather exceedingly soft and
fine. Those who are satisfied with an appearance of probability may
recollect, in reading the passage of Jerome, that the sable, when daily
used, throws out a faint and not unpleasant smell of musk, and assert
that the Pontic mouse was the sable.
Far more probable is the conjecture of our great zoologist, that
_mus Ponticus_ was the name given at first to the earless marmot,
_M. catili_, and that it was afterwards applied to the squirrel and
ermine[765]. This opinion he supports by the observation, that the
torpidity in winter, the rumination, and the affinity to the alpine
mouse, _M. alpinus_, which Pliny seems to acknowledge[766], agree
better with the _M. catili_ than any other animal. To this may be
added, that it is said by Hesychius and Phavorinus, that the Parthian
name of the animal was _simoor_; and that the earless marmot is still
named by the Tartars _symron_, and by the Calmucks _dshymbura_. The
similarity is indeed great, and this opinion is further confirmed
by the skins of the earless marmot being used at present by some of
the Siberian tribes for summer clothing, and sent as articles of
commerce, with other furs, to China, though they belong only to the
cheapest kinds, so that a thousand of them cost scarcely eight or ten
roubles[767].
Amidst this scanty information, were I allowed to offer a conjecture,
I should be inclined rather to the opinion of those who consider the
Pontic mouse to have been our ermine. For, in the first place, this
animal is very abundant in the countries from which the ancients
obtained their beautiful furs; and it seems almost impossible that they
should not at an early period have remarked the superiority of its skin
to that of the earless marmot. Secondly, it appears that the Pontic
mouse has been commonly considered as the ermine, since that name in
general was known; and there is reason to think that our forefathers
could not err in the name of an article which has been uninterruptedly
employed in commerce.
The name ermine occurs very often in works of the middle ages,
and written in various ways, such as _Harmellina_, _Harmelinus_,
_Ermelinus_, _Harminiæ_ and _Arminiæ_ or _Armerinæ_ or _hereminiæ
pelles_, _Ermena_, _Erminea_ and _erminatus_, ornamented with ermine;
all which words Du Cange supports by proofs. At what time these names
were first used I am not able to determine; but they are to be found,
at any rate, as early as the eleventh century, in the letters of Peter
Damiani[768]. Du Cange asserts that they came from Armenia, in which
country this kind of fur was in old times highly esteemed, as is proved
by a passage in Julius Pollux; and this appears the more probable, from
the circumstance that the words _Hermenia_ and _Hermenii_ were formerly
used and written instead of _Armenia_ and _Armenii_[769]. Fischer has
rejected this opinion too inconsiderately, because the ermine was not
procured from Armenia, but sent through it, from the northern countries
to Europe. The same thing is said by Du Cange; but he gives it to be
understood that this commodity was among the Armenian productions; and
even if he has erred in this respect, his derivation still remains the
most probable. Marco Polo, the celebrated traveller of the thirteenth
century, mentions the ermine among the most expensive ornaments of the
Tartars, and says that it was brought from the northern countries to
Europe.
The sable seems to have been known much later than the ermine. Its
real country is the most northern part of Asia, to which commerce
was not extended till a late period; yet it is probable that it was
known before the Russians became acquainted with Siberia, by means
of the Permians, Woguls and Samoeides, at the end of the fifteenth
century. It is also fully proved that the fine furs of Siberia were
the production which induced the Russians to make a conquest of that
country[770]. Besides, sables existed formerly in Permia, where at
present they are very scarce. The numerous remains of antiquity still
found in Siberia prove that at a very early period it was inhabited by
a people who carried on commerce, and were well-acquainted with the
arts.
Conrad Gesner believed that the name sable occurs for the first time in
Albertus Magnus, who wrote in the thirteenth century, under the word
_Cebalus_, or _Chebalus_. In the same century Marco Polo mentions,
at least in the Latin translation, _zibellina pellis_, as a valuable
kind of fur. But if _sabelum_ be the sable, as the similarity of the
word seems to show, it must have been known in the twelfth century,
and even earlier. The name _sabelum_ occurs in Alanus Insulanus, and
Du Cange found _sabelinæ pelles_ as early as the year 1138, though
_sabelum_ perhaps means the marten. _Gebellinica pellis_, _gibelini_
or _gibellini martores_, were mentioned in the eleventh century, and
_sabellinæ_ and _gebellinicæ pelles_ were undoubtedly the same[771].
I shall not however enter further into this inquiry, which it appears
would be endless, and at the same time of little benefit.
The marten, the fur of which approaches nearest to that of the sable,
appears to be first mentioned by Martial, who says, speaking of an
unsuccessful hunting excursion, that the hunter was overjoyed if he
caught only a marten[772]. But the reading is very doubtful; for many,
instead of _martes_, read _meles_; and the latter occurs in Varro,
Pliny, and other writers, whereas the former is found nowhere else.
In the middle ages, however, or at any rate in the twelfth century,
_martures_, _mardrini_, and _marturinæ vestes_ frequently occur; and
I can see no reason why they may not be considered as marten skins, a
name which has been retained in all the European languages.
With as little certainty can it be determined what our forefathers
meant by the words _vares_, _varii_, _vairus_, _vajus_, _varus_,
_vayrus_, _veyrus_ or the _vair_ of the French, and under _griseum_
and _grisum_. That they belong to costly kinds of fur is universally
admitted. Sometimes _varium_ and _griseum_ appear to be the same; and
sometimes the former seems to be more valuable than the latter. That
the former was spotted, or parti-coloured, is apparently announced by
the name; for both the leopard and panther are by Pliny called _variæ_.
What in heraldry is named by the French _vair_, and the Germans
_eisenhütlein_, _vellus varium_, and which is considered by the former
as the skin of an animal gray on the back and white on the belly[773],
alludes to this also. Sometimes, however, it seems to signify a fur
dress composed of differently-coloured pieces of fur sewed together.
Most writers are of opinion that it means _grauwerk_, _petit-gris_,
_vech_, _veh_, _vech_, _vehwammen_, also the squirrel; and there
is certainly a species of that animal which might justify the name
_varius_, as its skin is at present employed for variegated bordering
or trimming; but I do not know whether _grauwerk_[774] could be so
dear as _varium_ is said to have been, as it is among the productions
of Europe, though the best at present comes from Siberia. The word
_veeh_ is derived, as Frisch says, from the Italian _vaio_; the latter,
according to Muratori[775], is formed from _varius_, and even at
present a dress lined with fur is called _roba vaja_.
_Cirogillinæ pelles_, named by the council of Paris in the year 1212,
were rabbit skins[776]. Rabbit warrens, so early as the thirteenth
century, were not scarce in England; for in a letter of grace
respecting the forests, in 1215, every proprietor was permitted to
establish them on his own lands[777].
By the term _cattinæ pelles_[778], which are also often named, must
undoubtedly be understood cats’ skins. In France, in the twelfth
century, the skins of native animals were considered as of little
value; but the Spanish and Italian were highly prized. The skins of
the black fox, which at present are the dearest kind of furs, as a
single one in Russia is often sold for six hundred and even a thousand
roubles, occur in the thirteenth century, among the wares which were
sent from the most northern countries to Europe[779]; and without doubt
these were meant by Damiani in the passage above quoted[780].
Clothing made of the beaver skin occurs much earlier. It seems to be
mentioned by Claudian[781] in the fourth century; and it is spoken of
by Ambrosius[782], who lived at the same period. Sidonius Apollinaris,
in the fifth century, called those who wore it _castorinati_. The
scholiast of Juvenal, who indeed belongs to an unknown but much later
period, has also _pelles bebrinæ_ or _beverinæ_. As the ermine was
called the Pontic mouse, the beaver was named the Pontic dog.
I however firmly believe that this castor clothing was no more fur
clothing, than our beaver hats are fur hats. At that time the hair was
spun and wove; and Claudian, in my opinion, speaks of a worn-out beaver
dress, which had nothing more left of that valuable fur but the name.
This method of manufacturing beavers’ hair seems not to have been known
in the time of Pliny; for though he speaks much of the castor, and
mentions _pellis fibrina_[783] three times, he says nothing in regard
to manufacturing the hair, or to beaver fur. As attempts, however, had
then been made to manufacture the fur of the hare, it is probable that
beaver hair began to be worn soon after. Isidorus, who lived nearly
about that period, as he died in 636, reckons beaver hair, which he
calls _fibrinum_, among the materials employed for making cloth[784];
and where he enumerates the different kinds of cloth, he mentions also
_vestis fibrina_, and says that the warp was of beaver, and the woof of
goats’ hair, perhaps the so-called camel hair[785]. An upper garment
of this cloth was worn by the emperor Nicephorus II. Phocas, at his
coronation in the year 963, which undoubtedly was not a castor pelisse;
because fur clothing, as I shall soon prove, was not fashionable at the
court of the Greek emperors[786].
It deserves here to be remarked, that furs began to be dyed so early
as the twelfth century; and it appears that the colour was chiefly
red, for we find _pelles rubricatæ arietum_, that is, sheep-skins dyed
red; but Du Cange thinks he can prove that the skins of the marten and
ermine were dyed of the same colour. This I can believe in regard to
the ermine; but to dye the dark fur of the marten and sable would, in
my opinion, be hardly possible. St. Bernard[787] says, that such red
dyed leather in the twelfth century was called _gulæ_, which, with
_Hermin engolé_ of the old poets, seems to signify the same thing,
ermine skins dyed red.
When fur dresses became fashionable in Italy, they were soon spread
all over Europe. At first the best indigenous furs were employed;
but afterwards those of foreign countries, as being superior; and
the dearer they were, the more they were esteemed. At every court
they formed the state costume of the reigning family, and in a little
time that of the richest nobility. In particular, the mantle, _cottes
d’armes_ of the knights, which they drew over their cuirass or harness,
was bordered with the costliest furs. It had no sleeves, and resembled
the dress of ceremony worn by our heralds. On this account, as is
well known, ermine and other kinds of fur became parts of the oldest
coats of arms. Sometimes magnificence, in this respect, was carried
to such an extravagant length, that moralists declaimed against it,
while governments endeavoured to limit the use of furs by laws, and the
clergy to prohibit them entirely. Many kinds, therefore, were retained
only by the principal nobility, and others were forbidden.
Charlemagne, however, wore in winter a pelisse which covered his
shoulders and breast; but being an enemy to all foreign dress, he
employed only the furs of his native country; and, according to the
statement of some manuscripts, otter skins alone[788]. It nevertheless
appears that the costly oriental furs were then known at his court; for
having gone out hunting with his suite, on a cold rainy holiday, he
himself wore only a sheep’s skin; but the dresses of his attendants,
who had become acquainted in Italy with the valuable articles in which
the Venetians then dealt, consisted of foreign cloth and furs. These,
when thoroughly drenched and dried at the fire, crumbled to pieces.
The emperor then caused his sheep’s skin when dried to be rubbed,
and showing it to his courtiers ridiculed them on their foreign fur
dresses, which though expensive were of little use[789]. The imperial
princesses, however, on holidays wore dresses ornamented with precious
stones, gold, silver and silk, and also foreign furs; at any rate the
princess Berta had a valuable mantle or tippet of ermine, which Alcuin
calls _murina_[790].
Fur gloves were at that time usual also. The monks, at least, in winter
wore gloves of sheep’s skin, which were called _muffulæ_; whereas the
summer gloves were named _wanti_[791].
In the Welsh laws of Hywel Dda, who reigned in the tenth century, the
skin of an ox, a deer, a fox, a wolf and an otter, are estimated at
the same price, that is, eight times as dear as the skin of a sheep
or a goat. The skin of a white weazle was eleven times as dear, that
of a marten twenty-four times, and that of a beaver one hundred and
twenty[792].
In the year 1001 the emperor Otto III. sent an ambassador to
Constantinople, whose attendants were clothed in costly furs[793]. Adam
of Bremen, who lived in the same century, says, in his description of
the countries bordering on Poland and Russia, that from these districts
were procured those costly furs which were so eagerly purchased by the
luxurious[794]. When Godfrey of Bouillon, in the year 1096, paid a
visit to the emperor Alexius at Constantinople, what the latter chiefly
admired was the rich and costly dresses of the Europeans bordered with
furs[795]. In the beginning of the twelfth century the canons of a
cathedral suffered themselves to be corrupted by beautiful furs[796].
The use of them, however, was forbidden to the clergy at one of the
councils. According to that of London, in 1127, the abbesses and nuns
were to wear those only made of lamb-skins and cat-skins[797]. In the
year 1187, when the Christians were beaten near Tiberias, count Raimond
having treacherously gone over to the Turks, the latter found among the
plunder of the Christian camp a complete assortment of furs[798]. At
the end of the twelfth century, Gottfried or Gaufred, prior of Vigeois,
complained that no one would any longer wear sheep-skins and fox-skins,
which before had been worn by barons and the principal clergy[799].
We however find that princes sometimes endeavoured by the most
effective means to restrain this magnificence. When Philip II. of
France and Richard I. of England, about the end of the twelfth century,
undertook a crusade to the Holy Land, they resolved that neither of
them should wear ermine, sable, or other costly furs[800]. It appears
that a similar resolution was adopted by St. Louis (Louis IX.) in
the following century; for the historians, speaking of his crusade,
expressly say that he avoided all magnificence, and wore no costly
furs[801]. In the year 1336, in the reign of Edward III., king of
England, when foreign articles imported into the kingdom began to be
taxed, it was enacted, that no person whose yearly income did not
amount to a hundred pounds should wear furs, under the penalty of
losing them[802].
In Germany, in 1497, citizens who did not belong to the nobility or
equestrian order were forbidden to wear lining of sable or ermine.
According to an ordinance of 1530, common citizens, tradesmen, and
shopkeepers were to wear no trimmed clothes, nor to use marten or
other costly lining, and the rich were to wear lining made only of
lamb-skins, or those of the cow, fox, weasel, and the like. Merchants
and tradespeople were not to wear marten, sable, or ermine, and at
most weasel-skins; and their wives were to wear the fur only of the
squirrel. Counts and lords were allowed all kinds of lining, sable and
such like expensive kinds excepted. The latter permission was repeated,
word for word, in the year 1548.
When one considers how much the use of fur dresses was spread all over
Europe, it must excite astonishment that they were not introduced
at the court of Byzantium. No traces of them are to be found in any
of the Byzantine historians; not even in that work in which the
emperor Constantine describes the whole ceremonial of his court, and
in which dresses of various kinds are named, as Reiske has already
remarked[803]. Furs are nowhere represented on Grecian statues, in
paintings, or other works of art; and it will be seen in the passages
quoted, that in the magnificence which the European princes displayed
in the time of the crusades at the court of Constantinople, nothing
attracted so much attention as the different kinds of fur dresses. This
seems the more astonishing, as a great trade was carried on at that
time between Constantinople and those countries from which these wares
were sent to Europe.
Over one of the gates of Milan is an image cut out in stone of the
twelfth century, representing an emperor whose mantle is ornamented
with small triangular patches of fur. Flamma believed that this carving
was intended to represent one of the Greek emperors; but Giulini justly
remarks, in opposition to this opinion, that furs never occur in any
of the Greek sculpture. Besides, that image was evidently formed to
ridicule the emperor, as is proved by the hideous monster seated
close to him. But at that time the Milanese certainly had no cause
to offend the Greek emperor, with whom they were in alliance; and
Giulini has proved, in a very satisfactory manner, that the Milanese
erected this image to ridicule the emperor Frederick I., who was their
bitterest enemy[804]. On another image at Milan, cut out in stone, of
the thirteenth century, which represents the emperor of Germany on his
throne, surrounded by the electors, the latter have small mantles,
which are ornamented with triangular patches of fur of the same
kind[805].
[Since the discovery and settlement of Canada, furs or peltries have
mostly been obtained from the northern parts of America, some from the
states of Rio de la Plata, a few from Germany, Holland, &c.
The success obtained by the French after their settlement in Canada in
1608, induced the formation of the English Hudson’s Bay Company, which
was chartered by Charles II. in 1670, with the exclusive privilege of
trading with the Indians in the vast territories adjoining Hudson’s
Bay. But their charter never having been confirmed by parliament,
hunting in those regions was still considered as open to all British
subjects, and many engaged in it. In 1766, private adventurers began to
traffic from Michillimakinac, whose success incited others to follow
their example; and independent traders gradually spread over every
part of the country, until 1787, when these scattered parties were
united into one great body, under the name of the “North-west Company.”
The rivalry of these associations had the effect of inspiriting and
extending the trade, and led to constant and furious disturbances
between the two. At length, in 1821, the two concerns united, under
the title of the “Hudson’s Bay Fur Company,” with much advantage to
the peace of the fur countries, and perhaps to the permanent interests
of the trade. The skins collected by this company are all shipped to
London, mostly from their factories of York Fort and Moose Fort in
Hudson’s Bay; others from Fort Vancouver, on the river Columbia, and
from Montreal.
On the part of the United States, the fur trade is chiefly prosecuted
by the North American Fur Company, whose principal establishment is
at Michillimakinac, where it receives skins from the posts depending
on that station and from those on the Mississippi, Missouri and
Yellowstone rivers, and the great range of country extending thence
to the Rocky Mountains. Of other associations in the United States,
the most celebrated are Ashley’s Company from St. Louis, and Captain
Bonneville’s, formed at New York in 1831; which last has pushed its
enterprises into tracts between the Rocky Mountains and the coasts of
Monterrey and Upper California. Indeed the whole of the districts from
the Mississippi to the Pacific, and from the Arctic Sea to the Gulf
of Mexico, are now traversed in every direction by the hunter. Almost
all the American furs which do not belong to the Hudson’s Bay Company
find their way to New York, where they are either distributed for home
consumption, or exported chiefly to London.
The fur trade is also extensively pursued by the Russians in the north
of Asia and the north-west coast of America. Their chief association is
the Russian American Company of Moscow; and the principal markets for
their furs are the fairs of Kiachta, Novgorod and Leipsic.
London is the principal emporium of the fur trade: the vessels of the
Hudson’s Bay Company arrive here about September; the public sales are
held in March, and are attended by a great many foreign merchants,
whose purchases are chiefly sent to the great fairs of Leipsic, whence
they are distributed to various parts of the continent.]