In the art of weaving, the woof is thrown or made to pass through the
numerous threads of the warp[885], and is retained by them; but in
knitting there is only one thread, which is entwined in so ingenious
a manner that it produces a tissue approaching near to cloth, both in
its use and appearance, though it cannot be called cloth, because it is
formed without warp and woof. I will not, however, quarrel in regard to
names: the spider’s web is produced by only one thread, but in a manner
indeed which differs as much from weaving as it does from knitting; and
it is not known with certainty whether Arachne found out the art of
weaving cloth or of making nets[886].
There are two methods of knitting, essentially different from each
other; the one employed in making nets, and the other in knitting
stockings. In the former the twine is knotted into meshes by means of
a knitting-needle; whereas in the knitting of stockings the meshes
are produced without knots. Hence it may be readily comprehended why
knit stockings can be so easily and so speedily un-knit, in order
that the thread may be employed for new work; and why in nets this is
impossible. The knots which prevent it render it on the other hand
possible for nets to be cut or torn asunder, without destroying
more meshes than those immediately exposed to the force applied. One
may easily see also the cause why things knit in the same manner as
stockings can be stretched without being torn, and, like elastic
bodies, again contract as soon as the action of the distending force
ceases. On this account no kind of cloth has yet been found fitter
for gloves, stockings, garters and bandages. When not too closely
knit, single parts can be extended without injury, as the threads in
the neighbouring meshes give way, and the meshes become narrow or
contracted. This, on account of the knots, is not possible in knitting
of the first kind, which however produces the best nets, as the meshes
suffer the water and mud, together with the fish that are too small, to
pass through them, and retain only the fish that are larger. A captured
fish, in order to escape, must tear to pieces, after each other, as
many meshes as are equal to the circumference of its body. Were the net
formed in the same manner as a stocking, a single mesh, if torn, would
suffer it to pass through[887].
It is to be reckoned among the advantages of the present age, that a
readiness in knitting is required as a part of female education in
all ranks; and it may be easily acquired even by children, with the
assistance of an expert and indulgent instructress. It is however
astonishing that this art has not been banished by the refinement of
modern manners, especially as so much of the time of young females
is employed in the reading of novels and romances. But it is to
be observed, that this occupation, which, with a little practice,
becomes so easy that it may be called rather an amusement, does not
interrupt discourse, distract the attention or check the powers of
the imagination. It forms a ready resource when a vacuity occurs in
conversation, or when a circumstance takes place which ought to be
heard or seen, but not treated with too much seriousness: the prudent
knitter then hears and sees what she does not wish to seem to hear or
to see. Knitting does no injury either to the body or the mind, the
latter of which suffers from romances. It occasions no prejudicial or
disagreeable position, requires no straining of the eye-sight, and can
be performed with as much convenience when standing or walking as when
sitting. It may be interrupted without loss, and again resumed without
trouble; and the whole apparatus for knitting, which is cheap, needs
so little room, and is so light, that it can be kept and gracefully
carried about in a basket, the beauty of which displays the expertness,
or at any rate the taste, of the fair artist. Knitting belongs to
the few useful occupations of old persons, who have not lost the use
of their hands. Those who wish to reproach the fair sex for the time
they waste in endeavouring to please the men, ought not to forget
that the former know how to occupy those moments which the latter
devote, not to labour, but to social enjoyment or pleasure, or which
would be otherwise lost--the time in which the male sex are able to do
nothing that is useful. No one, however, will seriously object this
to the male sex, whose daily occupations tend so much to exhaust the
spirits; but is it not to be regretted that those who, in consequence
of their situation, perform properly no work, who are scarcely under
the necessity of thinking, and who rather become corrupted through
idleness, do not employ their vacant hours in knitting, in order to
gain money? What I mean to say is, should not servants, soldiers,
shepherds, and the male children of the peasants who are unfit for hard
labour, learn to knit, that they might earn something for themselves
and their families? A sale for knit articles, stockings, mitts, caps,
nets and fine lace can never be wanting. My panegyric, however, on
knitting is applicable, strictly speaking, to the second kind only,
which surpasses the first in utility, but is a much more modern
invention; for fishing and hunting were the oldest occupations, and
mention of nets occurs in the earliest writings.
It is not improbable that the people who resided on the banks of rivers
abundant in fish, endeavoured to catch them at first with baskets, such
as those which most of the Indians know how to make, or with other
vessels which suffered the water to run through them; but that in the
course of time a piece of thin cloth was employed, and at a still
later period, what was far more convenient, nets. Mention however of
fishing and hunting nets occurs very often in the Scriptures; and in
some passages it is clearly proved that we are to understand by them
such as were knit. But I shall leave commentators to determine whether
gins composed of ropes or cords[888] are not often meant where the
translators have introduced nets. The former are certainly older than
the latter; they were long used both in hunting and in war, and are
still employed among some savage tribes who are not acquainted with
fire-arms.
That nets, however, should be invented at an early period needs excite
no wonder, for they have been found in modern times among very rude
nations. Wafer[889] saw some among the American savages which were made
of the bark of a tree; and the Greenlanders made some of the same kind
of the hair of the whale’s beard, and of the sinews of other animals.
I shall omit here what has been said in regard to nets in the works
of the ancients, and particularly in those which treat on fishing and
hunting. The Latins say _texere retia_; and Pliny calls the yarn or
twine of which nets were made _stamen_; yet I am inclined to believe,
that both the Greeks and the Romans made their nets in the same manner
as we do at present.
Weaving, properly so called, is out of the question; and it appears
that these words were used in a very general sense, because there was
then no term of art to denote knitting. At any rate, I cannot believe
that the far more ingenious process by which our lace-weavers prepare
the netted scarfs used by military officers was then known, as Braun
seems to think[890]. Meshes were called by the Latins _maculæ_ and
_nodi_; but I as little understand what Pliny says, “retia succino
nodantur,” as the supposed explanation of Hardouin, “retia nodos
e succino habebant[891].” The author alludes here perhaps to some
ornament added to those nets which were drawn round the boxes or seats
of the senators. Some manuscripts read _notantur_: I should have
preferred _ornantur_.
The art of making nets of fine yarn, silk, or cotton, by the process of
knitting, and employing them as articles of dress or ornament, is not
an invention of modern luxury. I remember to have seen in old churches
retiform hangings, and on old dresses of ceremony borders or trimming
of the same kind, which fashion seems alternately to have banished and
recalled. That in the middle ages the mantles of the clergy had often
coverings of silk made in the same manner as fishing-nets, has been
proved by Du Cange[892]. I suspect also that the transparent dresses
used by the ladies, more than four hundred years ago, to cover those
beauties which they still wished to be visible, were nets of this
kind[893].
Far more ingenious and of much later invention is that art which
was undoubtedly first employed in making stockings, and on that
account called stocking-knitting. That the Romans and most of the
ancient nations had no particular clothing for the lower part of the
body, is so well known, that it is unnecessary for me to repeat the
proofs. Their legs however did not suffer more from the cold than our
hands when they are not covered by gloves, or than the feet of the
Franciscans at present; and what is common is not indecent. It is well
known that the northern nations first had hose or trowsers, which
covered not only the legs but the thighs and loins; and it was not till
a few centuries ago, that from this article of dress people began to
make two; the upper part retained the old name, and the lower, that
which covered the legs, was called in German _strumpf_, _truncus_,
which word Maler in his Dictionary explains by _halbhosen_, half-hose,
and _hosenstrumpf_. The diminutive _strümpfle_ signifies, according
to this author, hose that reach to the calf of the leg. The first
stockings were of cloth, and made by the tailors; consequently they
were not so commodious as our knit-stockings, which, for the reason
already mentioned, become closely contracted, without pressing the foot
or impeding a person in walking.
It is more than probable that the art of knitting stockings was first
found out in the sixteenth century, but the time of the invention is
doubtful; it is also uncertain to what people we are indebted for it,
and the name of the inventor is entirely unknown. Savary appears to
be the first person who hazarded the conjecture[894], that this art
is a Scottish invention, because the French stocking-knitters, when
they became so numerous as to form a guild, made choice of St. Fiacre,
a native of Scotland, to be their patron; and besides this, there is
a tradition, that the first knit stockings were brought to France
from that country. However this may be, it is certain that the first
letter of foundation for this guild, named “la Communauté des Maitres
Bonnetiers au Tricot,” is dated the 16th, or, as others say, the 26th
of August 1527. St. Fiacre, I shall here remark, was the second son of
Eugenius, who is said to have been king of Scotland in the beginning
of the seventh century; he lived as a hermit at Meaux in France,
and his name in the sacred calendar stands opposite to the 30th of
August[895]. It must however be acknowledged that Savary’s conjecture
rests only on a very slight foundation.
Somewhat more probable is an opinion, which has been long prevalent
in England, and is supported by the testimony of respectable writers.
Howell, in his History of the World, printed in 1680, relates that
Henry VIII., who reigned from 1509 to 1547, and who was fond of show
and magnificence, wore at first woollen stockings; till by a singular
occurrence he received a pair of knit silk stockings from Spain. His
son Edward VI., who succeeded him on the throne, obtained by means
of a merchant named Thomas Gresham, a pair of long Spanish knit silk
stockings; and this present was at that time highly prized. Queen
Elizabeth, in the third year of her reign, that is in 1561, received by
her silk-woman, named Montague, a pair of black silk knit stockings,
and afterwards would not wear any other kind[896].
This information is confirmed by another account. It is related in
Stow’s Chronicle, that the earl of Pembroke was the first nobleman
who wore worsted knit stockings. In the year 1564, William Rider, an
apprentice of Master Thomas Burdet, having accidentally seen in the
shop of an Italian merchant a pair of knit worsted stockings, procured
from Mantua, and having borrowed them, made a pair exactly like them,
and these were the first stockings knit in England of woollen yarn.
From this testimony, it has been hitherto believed in England that knit
stockings were first made known there under Henry VIII.; that they were
brought from Spain to that country; and that the invention belongs,
in all probability, to the Spaniards. Were this really the case, one
might conjecture that the first knit stockings known in England were of
silk, though the imitations made by Rider were of wool. For under Henry
VIII., Edward VI., and Elizabeth, silk stockings only are mentioned;
and at that period silk, and not woollen articles, were imported from
Italy and Spain. Did the invention belong to the Spaniards, I should be
inclined to conjecture that these people obtained it from the Arabians,
to whom we are indebted for many useful and ingenious arts. But at
any rate the conjecture of Savary falls to the ground; for as the
French had a stocking-knitters’ guild as early as 1527, it is highly
improbable that the English, forty years after, or about the year 1564,
should have been unacquainted with the invention of their nearest
neighbours, the Scots.
Some years ago, however, several learned men in England were led,
by a singular circumstance, to collect information in regard to the
antiquity of the art of knitting stockings. I here allude to the
forgeries of Thomas Chatterton, who was born on the 20th of November
1752, and terminated his unfortunate life by suicide on the 24th
of August 1770. This ingenious youth published some poems which he
pretended were written by Thomas Rowley, who lived in the reign of
Edward IV., that is about the year 1461. Many literary men denied
the authenticity of these poems, though they possessed great beauty;
proclaimed Chatterton to be a second Psalmanasar; and justified their
opinion by the circumstance of knit stockings being mentioned in
them. This they said was an anachronism, as the invention of knitting
stockings, according to Howell and Stow, must be a century later than
the supposed poet Rowley. Others, who supported the genuineness of
these poems, endeavoured on that account to make the invention older,
and collected information in regard to the history of it, from which I
have made the following extract[897].
In the beginning of the sixteenth century the people of Scotland
had breeches, in the proper sense of the word, and wore a kind of
stockings; for Hector Boethius, who was professor at Aberdeen in 1497,
relates that the Scots wore hose which reached only to the knee,
consequently stockings made of linen or woollen, and breeches chiefly
of hemp[898].
These particular articles of dress were usual at that time even in
England; for in the year 1510 king Henry VIII. appeared, on a public
occasion, with his attendants, in elegant dresses, in the description
of which breeches and hose are particularly mentioned[899].
In the year 1530, the word _knit_, applied to stockings, must have been
common in England; for at that time John Palsgrave, French master to
the Princess Mary, daughter of Henry VIII., published a grammar, in
which he stated that this word in French was applied to the making of
nets as well as of caps and stockings.
From a household book of a noble family in the time of Henry VIII., we
learn that knit stockings, both for grown-up people and children, were
sold at so low a price that it cannot be supposed they were foreign
articles[900].
In the reign of Edward VI. various kinds of knit articles must have
been made in England, as appears by some regulations relating to trade
and manufactures issued in 1552[901].
It nevertheless can be proved, that in the fifth year of the reign
of queen Mary, that is in 1558, there were many who wore stockings
of cloth; for Dr. Sands, who was afterwards archbishop of York, sent
for a tailor to measure him for a pair of hose[902]. This might serve
to confirm the assertion of Stow, that stockings were not knit in
England till six years after. But according to the testimonies already
produced, this cannot be true. It is much more credible, that the
clergy and old people, who are not ready to adopt new modes, wore
some years later the old-fashioned stockings of cloth, which in all
probability were similar to our gaiters.
It might be mentioned, as a further proof, if necessary, of breeches
and stockings being considered, long before the reign of queen
Elizabeth, as separate parts of dress, that in the catalogue then drawn
up of the revenue of the bishop of St. Asaph, it is stated that he
received as a perquisite, on the death of every clergyman who had a
living, his best breeches and stockings[903].
About 1577, that is ten years after the period of the invention as
given by Stow, knitting must have been common throughout all England,
and practised even in villages. The bark of the alder was used by
the wives of the peasants for dyeing the stockings which they had
knitted[904].
According to the well-known poet George Gascoigne[905], the greatest
ornaments in dress, about the year 1576, were knit silk stockings and
Spanish leather shoes.
About 1579, and not 1570 as stated in the Gentleman’s Magazine, when
queen Elizabeth was at Norwich, several female children appeared before
her, some of whom were spinning worsted yarn, and others knitting
worsted yarn hose[906].
The art of knitting stockings would be much older in Germany than in
France or in England; and Chatterton, at any rate, would be freed from
the charge of committing an anachronism, were it true, as Micrælius
wrote in the year 1639, that the consort of the duke of Pomerania,
who died in 1417, when she could no longer sew or embroider amused
herself with knitting[907]. But it is very probable that this good man
committed an anachronism, like Chatterton; and, in order to show the
industry of the duchess, named those occupations which were usual in
his own time.
In Germany, as far as I know at present, stocking-knitters occur for
the first time about the middle of the sixteenth century, under the
name of _hosenstricker_, a term which in Lower Saxony is still not
uncommon. At Hamburg the people say _hasenknütter_, and use the word
_hase_ for stockings. In Berlin there were stocking-knitters about the
year 1590. In many countries they had a particular guild; and this
is the case at present in the duchy of Wirtemberg, where they are
entirely different from those who work at the loom, and who are called
_stocking-weavers_. Each have their own regulations, in which it is
ordered that the stocking-knitters shall wear no articles wove, that
is knit, in a loom, and the stocking-weavers no articles knit with
the hand. That knitting however may be left free, as an occasional
occupation to every one, the following words are inserted in the
regulations of the stocking-knitters:--“Poor people, who through want
of other means procure a subsistence by knitting stockings, and those
who at the gates keep watch for themselves or others, and at the same
time knit, shall be at liberty to wear whatever they make with their
own hands.”
The German terms of art which relate to knitting are older than the art
itself, for they are all borrowed from the making of nets; _knütten_,
_knüteisen_, _knütholz_, _knütspan_, _stricken_ and _stricknadel_, and
also _maschen_, are all terms which occur in the fishing-regulations of
Brandenburg for the year 1574, and no doubt earlier. The _tricoter_ of
the French had the same origin as the German word _stricken_: _Trica_
was a lock of hair, a noose; and _tricare_ signified to entangle, and
deceive. _Lacer_ is derived from _laqs_, a rope, a noose; and this
comes from _laqueus_. The English word _stocking_ is derived from
_stock_, _truncus_, the trunk of a tree, a word still retained by the
German foresters, who in the Low German speak of rooting out _stocks_.
Silk stockings, however, in consequence of their high price, were
for a long time used only on very grand occasions. Henry II., king
of France, wore such stockings for the first time at the marriage of
his sister with the duke of Savoy in 1559[908]. In the reign of Henry
III., who ascended the throne in 1575, the consort of Geoffroy Camus
de Pontcarre, who held a high office in the state, would not wear silk
stockings given to her by a nurse, who lived at court, as a Christmas
present, because she considered them to be too gay. In the year 1569,
when the privy-counsellor Barthold von Mandelsloh, who had been envoy
to many diets and courts, appeared on a week-day at court with silk
stockings which he had brought from Italy, the margrave John of Custrin
said to him, “Barthold, I have silk stockings also; but I wear them
only on Sundays and holidays.” The celebrated Leonard Thurneisser,
however, who lived at the court of Brandenburg about the end of the
sixteenth century, wore silk stockings daily, and in general dressed
very magnificently in silk and velvet.
Knitting with wires, the method of which I have hitherto spoken, has
always appeared to me so ingenious, that I conceived the inventor of
it must have had a pattern to serve as a guide. This pattern I think
I have discovered. Wire-workers, and other artists who used wire,
exercised their ingenuity some centuries ago, more than at present,
in making wire-screens in various ways; and it must be confessed that
many of them produced articles, which even at present, though not
suited to the modern taste, deserve admiration. Works of this kind
may still be found in old churches. The art of making them has often
been considered as too difficult for human hands; and hence popular
tradition has asserted that the artists were assisted by the devil. A
tale of this kind is still related, though no longer believed, to those
whose curiosity induces them to view the wire-screen which surrounds
the baptismal font in St. Mary’s church at Wismar, and which is plaited
or wove in so ingenious a manner, as if with ropes, that neither the
beginning nor end of the wires can be observed. A similar legend is
told to strangers when shown the screen around the pulpit in the
cathedral of Lubec, which, according to the inscription, was made in
1572. It is not improbable that, among works of this kind, some may be
found made with meshes, as if formed by knitting. Our pin-makers can
construct some much more ingenious. That I might be better able in my
technological lectures to convey to my pupils an idea of knitting, I
made a drawing on the subject, and caused a pin-maker to weave for me a
small screen of brass wire. This work is easy, because it is executed
in a frame of strong but pliable wire. I suspect therefore that some
one first tried to make an imitation of such a wire-net with yarn, and
in one expanded piece, for which only two or three small sticks would
be necessary. Instead of having a frame, the inventor, it is probable,
fastened to his clothes the stick on which the meshes were made, or
on which he knitted; but afterwards employed a sheath to perform that
service. Thus, most of the Wirtemberg stocking-knitters, at present,
knit with two wires and a sheath. Hence their stockings, like those
wove in the stocking-loom, are sewed or have a seam behind.
Among the master-pieces of the Wirtemberg stocking-knitters, a carpet
of beautiful flower-work and figures is mentioned in their regulations.
It is milled, and when spread out measures three ells in length and one
and a half in breadth. It is probable that some person, by repeated
trials, found out the method of knitting in a circular form; but for
this purpose several wires would be necessary. In order to render this
improved art of knitting similar to the old method, the meshes were so
arranged that the stockings seemed to have a seam, for which however
there was no occasion. The sheath, which was fastened to the left side,
was long retained by our knitters; but as it retarded the work, and
as it was necessary to keep the body in an uneasy posture, injurious
to the growth of young and industrious persons, means were devised to
dispense with it and to knit with much less restraint. In this manner
the art was brought to its present perfection; and it must excite no
small astonishment when it is considered that it was invented all at
once, and by one person.
The invention of the stocking-loom is worthy of more admiration,
when one reflects that it was not a matter of accident, like most
of the great discoveries, but the result of talents and genius. It
is a machine exceedingly complex, consisting of two thousand parts,
which, in a moment almost, can make two hundred meshes of loops,
without requiring much skill or labour in the workman. There are few
descriptions of this machine; and those published do not fully answer
the purpose[909]. But my object is merely the question, Who was the
inventor, in what country, and at what time did he live? and I can say,
that after the most diligent research, it does not appear subject to
any doubt, as some have hitherto believed.
Under the administration of Cromwell, the stocking-knitters of London
presented a petition, in which they requested permission to establish
a guild. In this petition they gave to the Protector an account of the
rise, progress, and importance of their art or trade; and there can be
no doubt that this well-written document contains the oldest authentic
information in regard to this invention, which was then scarcely
fifty years old. Every thing must then have been fresh in the memory
of those by whom it was drawn up; every circumstance could easily
be examined; and the petitioners must have been sensible that their
misrepresentations, for which however they had no reason, could easily
be contradicted. However unimportant my research may appear, it gave me
much pleasure to find a copy of this petition in Deering’s Account of
Nottingham, already mentioned, in which the author has collected many
authentic circumstances from the records of that town, where the loom
was first employed and enriched many families, and whence the use of it
was spread all over England and Europe[910].
From these it appears that the real inventor was William Lee, whose
name in the petition is written Lea, a native of Woodborough, in
Nottinghamshire, a village about seven miles distant from the town
of Nottingham. He was heir to a considerable freehold estate, and a
graduate of St. John’s College, Cambridge. It is reported, that being
enamoured of a young country-girl, who during his visits paid more
attention to her work, which was knitting, than to her lover and 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 affection to converse with him. Love
indeed is fertile in inventions, and gave rise, it is said, to the art
of painting; but a machine so complex in its parts and so wonderful
in its effects, would seem to require longer and quieter reflection,
more judgement, and more time and patience, than can be expected in a
lover. But even if the cause should appear problematical, there can be
no doubt in regard to the inventor, whom most of the English writers
positively assert to have been William Lee.
Aaron Hill seems to make the stocking-loom younger, and relates the
circumstance in the following manner. A student of Oxford was so
imprudent as to marry at an early period, without money and without
income. His young wife, however, was able to procure the necessaries of
life by knitting; but as the natural consequences of love, an increase
of family, was likely to render this soon insufficient, the husband
invented a machine by which knitting could be performed in a speedier
and more profitable manner. Having thus completed a stocking-loom, he
became by its means a man of considerable wealth[911]. But Hill, in his
account, gives neither names, date, nor proofs; and as he seems to have
formed it from an imperfect remembrance of what he had heard or read in
regard to Lee, it is not worthy of further examination.
Deering says expressly, that Lee made the first loom in the year 1589;
and this account has been adopted by Anderson and most of the English
writers. In the stocking-weavers’ hall, at 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 it is seen an inscription with the
date 1589, which was the year of the invention[912]. Other accounts
make it somewhat later. Thus Howell, after relating that Queen
Elizabeth obtained the first stockings in 1561, says that thirty-nine
years after the loom was invented by Lee, in which case the period
would be 1600[913]. In the petition of the stocking-knitters it is
stated, that the loom, at that time, had been found out about fifty
years. It is to be regretted that this document has no date; but as
Cromwell reigned from 1653 to 1658, the invention would fall in the
beginning of the seventeenth century. It is more probable, however,
that it belongs to the end of the sixteenth.
Lee instructed his brother James in the use of the loom, and took
apprentices and assistants, with whom he carried on business for some
years at Calverton, a village five miles distant from Nottingham. On
this account, Calverton has by some been considered as his birth-place.
He showed his work to Queen Elizabeth, who died in 1603, and requested
from that princess some support or remuneration; but he obtained
neither, and was impeded rather than assisted in his undertaking.
Under these circumstances, Lee accepted an invitation from Henry IV.
king of France, who had heard of this invention, and promised to give
a handsome reward to the author of it. He therefore carried nine
journeymen and several looms to Rouen in Normandy, where he worked
with great approbation; but the king being assassinated, and internal
commotions having taken place, Lee fell into great distress, and died
soon after at Paris. Two only of his people remained in France, one of
whom was still alive when the before-mentioned petition was presented
to Cromwell. Seven of them returned to England; and these, with a
person named Aston, who at first was a miller at Thoroton, the place of
his birth[914], but afterwards an apprentice of Lee, by whom he had
been left behind in England, where he made some improvements in the
loom, laid the foundation of the stocking-manufactory in that country.
The number of masters increased there in the course of fifty years so
much, that it was found necessary to unite them into one guild; for
which Cromwell, however, in consequence of reasons not known, refused
the proper sanction; but in 1663 they received letters patent, which
gave them certain privileges to the extent of ten miles round London.
In the year 1614, the Venetian ambassador, Antonio Correr, persuaded an
apprentice, Henry Mead, by the promise of five hundred pounds sterling,
to go with a loom to Venice for a stated time, and to teach there the
use of it. Mead met with a favourable reception in that city, and was
much admired; but the loom becoming deranged, and no person at Venice
being able to repair it, when the time of his agreement was expired,
he returned to England. The Venetians had not resolution enough to
continue the attempt; and sent the damaged loom, together with some bad
imitations of it, to London, where they were sold for a mere trifle.
Such is the account given in the petition before-mentioned.
Zano, however, an Italian writer[915], asserts, on the authority of
information preserved in manuscript among family documents, that Correr
carried two stocking-weavers with looms to Venice; that he immediately
placed under them four apprentices, and when they went back to England
sent with them a boy, who returned to Venice well-instructed in the
art, and who continued to carry on business there with great success.
Giambattista Carli of Gemona, a smith who worked in steel, saw the loom
at Venice, which had been made after the model of those brought from
England and sold to Francesco Alpruni of Udina. In a short time a great
many stockings were manufactured there, and sent for sale, chiefly to
Gradisca in Austria. But, in consequence of the poverty of the Venetian
stocking-knitters, an order was issued that Carli should make no more
looms; and this productive branch of business at Udina was so much
deranged, that the masters removed with their looms to Gradisca, where
the inhabitants of Udina were obliged to purchase such stockings as
they had occasion to use.
Some years after the stocking-loom had been introduced at Venice,
Abraham Jones, who understood stocking-weaving and the construction
of the loom, though never regularly taught, went with some assistants
to Amsterdam, where he worked on his own account two or three years,
till he and his people were carried off by a contagious disease. The
looms, because no one could use them, were sent to London and sold for
a low price. In the petition to Cromwell the masters state, with great
satisfaction, that in this manner the trade had remained in England;
and, that it may be exclusively retained in their native country, they
wish for the establishment of a privileged company.
It appears to me therefore proved beyond all doubt, that the
stocking-loom was invented by William Lee, an Englishman, about the end
of the sixteenth century; and this is admitted by some French writers,
such as Voltaire[916] and the editor of the first Encyclopédie, whom
the author of the Encyclopédie Méthodique however finds fault with.
Other French writers, who are the more numerous party, wish to ascribe
the honour of this invention to one of their own countrymen; but the
proofs they bring are so weak that they scarcely deserve notice. Savary
perhaps is the first person who publicly ventured to support this
instance of Gallic vanity; at any rate he is quoted by the more modern
writers as their authority when they wish to contradict the English.
According to his account, a Frenchman, of whom however he knows
nothing further, invented the stocking-loom; but not being able to
obtain the exclusive privilege of using it in his own country, went
with it to England. The utility of it being soon discovered there,
it was forbidden, under pain of death, to carry a loom or a model of
it out of the kingdom. But another Frenchman, respecting whom he is
equally ignorant, having seen the loom, the form of it made so deep
an impression on his memory, that on his return he copied it exactly;
and from this loom all the others used in France and Holland were
constructed. Savary adds, did the invention belong to the English,
who are accustomed to pay due honour to those who discover useful
things, they undoubtedly could tell the name of the inventor, which
however they are not able to do. It is very strange that this should be
written by a Frenchman, who himself did not know the name of the French
inventor, or of the person who carried back the invention. No order
to prevent the exportation of the stocking-loom was issued in England
so early, else it would certainly have been mentioned in the petition
presented to Cromwell. It was not till the eighth year of the reign of
William III., that is 1696, when looms were everywhere common, that
the exportation of them was forbidden; probably because the best were
made in England, and it was wished that the gradual improvement of them
should be kept secret. The penalty also was not death, but a fine and
confiscation of the looms.
Some have endeavoured to give an air of probability to this assertion
of Savary, by the relation of an apothecary in the Hotel-Dieu at Paris.
This person is said to have declared that the inventor was a journeyman
locksmith of Lower Normandy, who gave a pair of silk stockings, his own
workmanship, to Colbert, in order that they might be presented to Louis
XIV.; but as the _marchands bonetiers_, who dealt in articles knit
according to the old manner, caused several loops of these stockings
to be cut by some of the servants at court, whom they had bribed for
that purpose, they did not meet with approbation. The inventor was so
hurt by this disappointment, that he sold the loom to an Englishman,
and died an old man in the Hotel-Dieu, where the apothecary became
acquainted with him. It was necessary to expose the lives of many
workmen, and even of some men of learning, in order to bring back a
loom to France. Romè de la Platière adds, that he heard at Nimes, that
in the time of Colbert a person of that place, named Cavellier, carried
the first loom to France; and that, in the course of fifty years, the
number of the looms in that town and neighbourhood increased to some
thousands. It appears much more certain that the stocking manufactory,
as Savary asserts, was established at the castle of Madrid in the Bois
Boulogne near Paris, in the year 1656, under the direction of John
Hindret.
I do not know at what time the first loom was brought to Germany; but
it is certain that this branch of manufacture was spread chiefly by the
French refugees who sought shelter in that country after the revocation
of the edict of Nantes. Winkelmann says expressly, that they carried
the first looms to Hesse. This is not at all improbable, because our
stocking manufacturers give French names to every part of their looms,
as well as to their different kinds of work. Becher boasts of having
introduced the loom at Vienna, and of having first constructed looms
of wood. At present many wooden ones are made at Obernhau in the
Erzgebürge, and sold at the rate of twenty-eight dollars; whereas iron
ones, of the most inferior kind, are sold in Vogtland for sixty or
seventy.
[In 1663 a charter was granted by Charles II. to the Frame-work
Knitters’ Society of London (stocking-makers), which had been refused
to them a few years before by Oliver Cromwell. Six years afterwards
the number of stocking-frames in England amounted to 700, employing
1200 workmen, three-fifths of whom made silk stockings, and the others
worsted; for cotton was not then ranked among English manufactures. By
1714 the number of frames had increased to 8000 or 9000. Some years
after this, the Frame-work Knitters’ Company attempted to control both
the manufacture itself, and the making and selling of the stockings;
but the project failed. By the year 1753 the number of frames in
England was 14,000. In 1758 a machine for making ribbed stockings was
patented by Mr. Strutt of Belper.
In 1838 stocking-frames with a rotatory action, and worked by steam,
were successfully brought into use in Nottingham. Of the present extent
and value of the hosiery manufacture, perhaps the best estimate is
that made a few years ago by Mr. Felkin of Nottingham. This gentleman
calculates the value of cotton hosiery annually made at £880,000, that
of worsted at £870,000, and that of silk at £241,000. He estimates
the number of stockings annually manufactured at 3,510,000 dozens;
and in the production of these there are used 4,584,000 lbs. of raw
cotton, value £153,000; 140,000 lbs. of raw silk, value £91,000; and
6,318,000 lbs. of English wool, value £316,000; making the total value
of the materials £560,000, which are ultimately converted into the
exchangeable value of £1,991,000. The total number of persons employed
is 73,000.]