[505] Paus. l. vi. cap. § 4.
But we know, that all plants undergo great changes by cultivation and in consequence of the varieties of soil and climate. What can be more striking than the innumerable tulips derived from the original yellow tulip of Turkey, or all the varieties of pinks and carnations from a single species? To make all the descriptions of cloth from the coarsest canvass or sail-cloth to the most beautiful lawn or cambric, there must have been, as there now are, great differences in the living plant. The best explanation therefore of the language of Pausanias seems to be, that he used λίνον to denote the common kind of flax, and βύσσος to signify a finer variety[506]. In another passage, where he speaks of the Elean Byssus, his language shows, that its peculiar excellence consisted both in its fineness and in its beautiful yellow color; for after expressing the admiration, to which this substance was entitled, as growing nowhere else in Greece, he says, that “in fineness it was not inferior to that of the Hebrews, but was not equally yellow[507].”
[506] Pausanias also distinguishes between λίνον and βύσσος in his account of the clothing of a reputed statue of Neptune, l. vi. c. 25. § 5. When flax is raised to be manufactured into cambric and fine lawn, twice as much seed is sown in the same space of ground. The plants then grow closer together; the stalks are more delicate and slender; and the fibres of each plant are finer in proportion.
[507] L. v. 5. § 2.
Others commend Byssus on account of its whiteness. See Philo. Apoc. xix. 14. Themistius (Orat. p. 57. ed. Paris, 1684. p. 68. ed. Dindorfii, Lips. 1832.) saw at Antioch “ancient letters wrapt in white Byssus.” These, he says, were brought from Susa and Ecbatana.
It may further be remarked in opposition to the idea, that βύσσος meant cotton in these passages, that there is not the slightest ground for supposing, that cotton was cultivated either in Elis or in any other part of Europe so early as the time of Pausanias, nor indeed until a comparatively recent age.
III. Forster (p. 69-71.) considers the testimony of Herodotus, that the embalmed bodies of the dead were wrapt in fillets of Byssus, as decisive in favor of his opinion, because those fillets are found on examination to be all cotton. It is presumed that the preceding testimony, proves that so far as they have been examined, in the only way which can settle the dispute, they are found universally to be linen.
Of Forster’s celebrated work it may be observed in general, that he rather from the very beginning assumes his point, than endeavors to prove it. He continually speaks of it as demonstrated. Nevertheless the only arguments which can be found in his book, are those already stated. Little as these arguments amount to in opposition to the evidence, which has now been brought forward on the other side of the question, we find that the most learned authors since Forster’s time, and especially since the same opinion was embraced by Blumenbach, have generally been content to adopt it. But, although such eminent names as those of Porson[508], Dr. Thomas Young[509], Mr. Hamilton[510], Dr. T. M. Harris[511], Mr. Wellbeloved[512], E. H. Barker[513], Dr. A. Granville[514], Jomard[515], Wehrs[516], J. H. Voss[517], Heeren[518], Sprengel[519], Billerbeck[520], Gesenius[521], E. F. K. Rosenmuller[522], and Roselini[523], stand arrayed against the evidence now produced, i. e. to prove that βύσσος meant flax and not cotton, as those authors have supposed. Yet their evidence may be considered as going all for nothing, because they express not their own opinion formed by independent inquiry and investigation, but merely the opinion which they have adopted from Forster and Blumenbach.
[508] In his translation of the Rosetta Inscription, Clarke’s Greek Marbles, p. 63.
[509] Account of Discoveries in Hieroglyphic Literature, p. 101. 114.