A. D. 530.—Introduction of silk-worms into Europe—Mode by which it was effected—The Serinda of Procopius the same with the modern Khotan—The silk-worm never bred in Sir-hind—Silk shawls of Tyre and Berytus—Tyrannical conduct of Justinian—Ruin of the silk manufactures—Oppressive conduct of Peter Barsames—Menander Protector—Surprise of Maniak the Sogdian ambassador—Conduct of Chosroes, king of Persia—Union of the Chinese and Persians against the Turks—The Turks in self-defence seek an alliance with the Romans—Mortification of the Turkish ambassador—Reception of the Byzantine ambassador by Disabul, king of the Sogdiani—Display of silk textures—Paul the Silentiary’s account of silk—Isidorus Hispalensis. Mention of silk by authors in the seventh century—Dorotheus, Archimandrite of Palestine—Introduction of silk-worms into Chubdan, or Khotan—Theophylactus Simocatta—Silk manufactures of Turfan—Silk known in England in this century—First worn by Ethelbert, king of Kent—Use of by the French kings—Aldhelmus’s beautiful description of the silk-worm—Simile between weaving and virtue. Silk in the eighth century—Bede. In the tenth century—Use of silk by the English, Welsh, and Scotch kings. Twelfth century—Theodorus Prodromus—Figured shawls of the Seres—Ingulphus describes vestments of silk interwoven with eagles and flowers of gold—Great value of silk about this time—Silk manufactures of Sicily—Its introduction into Spain. Fourteenth century—Nicholas Tegrini—Extension of the Silk manufacture through Europe, illustrated by etymology—Extraordinary beauty of silk and golden textures used in the decoration of churches in the middle ages—Silk rarely mentioned in the ninth, eleventh, or thirteenth centuries.
We now come to the very interesting account of the first introduction of silk-worms into Europe, which is given by Procopius in the following terms. (De Bello Gothico, iv. 17.)
“About this time (A. D. 530.) two monks, having arrived from India, and learnt that Justinian was desirous that his subjects should no longer purchase raw silk from the Persians, went to him and offered to contrive means, by which the Romans would no longer be under the necessity of importing this article from their enemies the Persians or any other nation. They said, that they had long resided in the country called Serinda, one of those inhabited by the various Indian nations, and had accurately informed themselves how raw silk might be produced in the country of the Romans. In reply to the repeated and minute inquiries of this Emperor, they stated, that the raw silk is made by worms, which nature instructs and continually prompts to this labor; but that to bring the worms alive to Byzantium would be impossible; that the breeding of them is quite easy; that each parent animal produces numberless eggs, which long after their birth are covered with manure by persons who have the care of them, and being thus warmed a sufficient time, are hatched. The Emperor having promised the monks a handsome reward, if they would put in execution what they had proposed, they returned to India and brought the eggs to Byzantium, where, having hatched them in the manner described, they fed them with the leaves of the Black Mulberry, and thus enabled the Romans thenceforth to obtain raw silk in their own country.”
The same narrative, abridged from Procopius, is found in Manuel Glycas (Annal. l. iv. p. 209.), and Zonares (Annal. l. xiv. p. 69. ed. Du Cange.). In the abstract given by Photius (Biblioth. p. 80. ed. Rotham) of the history of Theophanes Byzantinus, who was a writer of nearly the same age with Procopius, we find a narrative, in which the only variation is, that a Persian brought the eggs to Byzantium in the hollow stem of a plant. The method now practised in transporting the eggs from country to country is to place them in a bottle not more than half full, so that by being tossed about, they may be kept cool and fresh. If too close, they would probably be heated and hatch on the journey[69].
[69] Transactions of the Society for encouraging Arts, Manufactures, &c., vol. xliii. p. 236.
The authors who have hitherto treated of the history of the silk-worm, have supposed the Serinda of Procopius to be the modern Sir-hind, a city of Circar in the North of Hindostan[70]. Notwithstanding the striking similarity of names, we think it more likely that Serinda was adopted by Procopius as another name for Khotan in Little Bucharia. The ancients included Khotan among the Indian nations[71]: and that they were right in so doing is established from the facts, that Sanscrit was the ancient language of the inhabitants of Khotan; that their alphabetical characters, their laws, and their literature resembled those of the Hindoos; and that they had a tradition of being Indian in their origin[72]. Since, therefore, Khotan was also included in the ancient Serica, a term probably of wide and rather indefinite extent[73]; the name Serinda would exactly denote the origin and connexions of the race which occupied Khotan.
[70] In this they have followed D’Anville, Antiquité Géographique de l’Inde, Paris, 1775, p. 63.
[71] In proof of this we refer to Heeren, Ideen, i. l. p. 358-387, on the Indian tribes which constituted one of the Persian Satrapies, and in which the inhabitants of Khotan appear to have been included; and also to Cellarii Antiqui Orbis Notitia, l. iii. c. 23. § 2.
[72] Rémusat, Hist. de la Ville de Khotan, p. 32. Note 1. and p. 37.
[73] De Guignes (Hist. Gen. des Huns, tome i. p. v.) expresses his opinion, that Serica, besides the North of China, included the countries towards the West, which were conquered by the Chinese, viz. Hami, Turfan, and other neighboring territories. Rennell (Mem. of a map of Hindostan) agrees with D’Anville, that Serica was at the Northwest angle of the present empire of China. Heeren decides in favor of the same opinion, supposing Serica to be identical with the modern Tongut. Comment. Soc. Reg. Scient. Gottingensis, vol. xi. p. 106. 111. Gottingæ, 1793.