carried+together

SUBJECT AREA: Textiles

[br]

[br]

[br]

Jedediah Strutt was the second of three sons of William, a small farmer and maltster at South Normanton, near Alfreton, Derbyshire, where the only industry was a little framework knitting. At the age of 14 Jedediah was apprenticed to Ralph Massey, a wheelwright near Derby, and lodged with the Woollats, whose daughter Elizabeth he later married in 1755. He moved to Leicester and in 1754 started farming at Blackwell, where an uncle had died and left him the stock on his farm. It was here that he made his knitting invention.

William Lee's knitting machine remained in virtually the same form as he left it until the middle of the eighteenth century. The knitting industry moved away from London into the Midlands and in 1730 a Nottingham workman, using Indian spun yarn, produced the first pair of cotton hose ever made by mechanical means. This industry developed quickly and by 1750 was providing employment for 1,200 frameworkers using both wool and cotton in the Nottingham and Derby areas. It was against this background that Jedediah Strutt obtained patents for his Derby rib machine in 1758 and 1759.

The machine was a highly ingenious mechanism, which when placed in front of an ordinary stocking frame enabled the fashionable ribbed stockings to be made by machine instead of by hand. To develop this invention, he formed a partnership first with his brother-in-law, William Woollat, and two leading Derby hosiers, John Bloodworth and Thomas Stamford. This partnership was dissolved in 1762 and another was formed with Woollat and the Nottingham hosier Samuel Need. Strutt's invention was followed by a succession of innovations which enabled framework knitters to produce almost every kind of mesh on their machines. In 1764 the stocking frame was adapted to the making of eyelet holes, and this later lead to the production of lace. In 1767 velvet was made on these frames, and two years later brocade. In this way Strutt's original invention opened up a new era for knitting. Although all these later improvements were not his, he was able to make a fortune from his invention. In 1762 he was made a freeman of Nottingham, but by then he was living in Derby. His business at Derby was concerned mainly with silk hose and he had a silk mill there.

It was partly his need for cotton yarn and partly his wealth which led him into partnership with Richard Arkwright, John Smalley and David Thornley to exploit Arkwright's patent for spinning cotton by rollers. Together with Samuel Need, they financed the Arkwright partnership in 1770 to develop the horse-powered mill in Nottingham and then the water-powered mill at Cromford. Strutt gave advice to Arkwright about improving the machinery and helped to hold the partnership together when Arkwright fell out with his first partners. Strutt was also involved, in London, where he had a house, with the parliamentary proceedings over the passing of the Calico Act in 1774, which opened up the trade in British-manufactured all-cotton cloth.

In 1776 Strutt financed the construction of his own mill at Helper, about seven miles (11 km) further down the Derwent valley below Cromford. This was followed by another at Milford, a little lower on the river. Strutt was also a partner with Arkwright and others in the mill at Birkacre, near Chorley in Lancashire. The Strutt mills were developed into large complexes for cotton spinning and many experiments were later carried out in them, both in textile machinery and in fireproof construction for the mills themselves. They were also important training schools for engineers.

Elizabeth Strutt died in 1774 and Jedediah never married again. The family seem to have lived frugally in spite of their wealth, probably influenced by their Nonconformist background. He had built a house near the mills at Milford, but it was in his Derby house that Jedediah died in 1797. By the time of his death, his son William had long been involved with the business and became a more important cotton spinner than Jedediah.

[br]

① maker of stage properties (acc. to Pollux 7, 189 the Old Comedy used the word as a synonym for μηχανοποιός=either a ‘stagehand’ who moved stage properties [as Aristoph., Pax 174] or a ‘manufacturer of stage properties’. Associated terms include σκηνογράφος Diog. L. 2, 125 and σκηνογραφία Arist., Poet. 1449a and Polyb. 12, 28a, 1, in ref. to painting of stage scenery) Ac 18:3. But if one understands σκηνή not as ‘scene’ but as ‘tent’ and considers it improbable that Prisca, Aquila, and Paul would have practiced such a trade in the face of alleged religious objections (s. Schürer II 54–55 on Jewish attitudes towards theatrical productions), one would follow the traditional rendering

② tentmaker. This interpretation has long enjoyed favor (s. Lampe s.v.; REB, NRSV; Hemer, Acts 119, 233), but several considerations militate against it. The term σκηνοποιός is not used outside the Bible (and its influence), except for Pollux (above) and Herm. Wr. 516, 10f=Stob. I, 463, 7ff. There it appears as an adj. and in a figurative sense concerning production of a dwelling appropriate for the soul. The context therefore clearly indicates a structure as the primary component, but in the absence of such a qualifier in Ac 18:3 it is necessary to take account of words and expressions that similarly contain the terms σκηνή and ποιεῖν. A survey of usage indicates that σκηνή appears freq. as the obj. of ποιέω in the sense ‘pitch’ or ‘erect a tent’ (s. ποιέω 1a; act. σκηνοποιέω Is 13:20 Sym. οὐδὲ σκηνοποιήσει ἐκεῖ ῎ Αραψ; 22:15 Sym.; mid. σκηνοποιέομαι Aristot., Meteor. 348b, 35; Clearch., Fgm. 48 W.; Polyb. 14, 1, 7; Diod S 3, 27, 4; Ps.-Callisth. 2, 9, 8.—Cp. σκηνοποιί̈α Aeneas Tact. 8, 3; Polyb. 6, 28, 3; ins, RevArch 3, ’34, 40; and acc. to the text. trad. of Dt 31:10 as an alternate expr. for σκηνοπηγία.—Ex 26:1, it is granted, offers clear evidence of use of the non-compounded σκηνή + ποιέω in the sense ‘produce’ or ‘manufacture [not pitch] a tent’, but the context makes the meaning unmistakable; cp. Herodian 7, 2, 4 on the building of rude housing). Analogously σκηνοποιός would mean ‘one who pitches or erects tents’, linguistically a more probable option than that of ‘tentmaker’, but in the passages cited for σκηνοποιέω and σκηνοποιί̈α components in the context (cp. the case for provision of housing in the Hermetic pass.) clearly point to the denotation ‘pitching of tents’, whereas Ac 18:3 lacks such a clear qualifier. Moreover, it is questionable whether residents of nomadic areas would depend on specialists to assist in such a common task (s. Mt 17:4 par. where a related kind of independent enterprise is mentioned).—That Prisca, Aquila, and Paul might have been engaged in the preparation of parts for the production of a tent is also improbable, since such tasks would have been left to their hired help. That they might have been responsible for putting a tent together out of various pieces is ruled out by the availability of the term σκηνορράφος (Ael., VH 2, 1 et al.; Bull. Inst. Arch. Bulg. 8, 69) in the sense of stitching together (the verb ἐπιτελεῖν Hb 8:5 does not support such a view, for it is not an alternate expr. for ‘production’ of a tent but denotes ‘completion’ of a project, connoting a strong sense of religious commitment; see ἐπιτελέω 2) in which the component ῥαφ-provides an unmistakable qualifier.—In modern times more consideration has been given to identification of Paul’s trade as ‘leather-worker’, an interpretation favored by numerous versions and patristic writings (s. Zahn, AG, ad loc.; L-S-J-M Suppl., s.v., as replacement for their earlier ‘tentmaker’; Haenchen, ad loc., after JJeremias, ZNW 30, ’31; Hock, s. below). As such he would make tents and other products from leather (Hock [s. below] 21). But this and other efforts at more precise definition, such as weaver of tent-cloth (a view no longer in fashion) may transmit reflections of awareness of local practice in lieu of semantic precision.—In the absence of any use of the term σκηνοποιός, beyond the pass. in Pollux and the Herm. Wr., and the lack of specific qualifiers in the text of Ac 18:3, one is left with the strong probability that Luke’s publics in urban areas, where theatrical productions were in abundance, would think of σκηνοποιός in ref. to matters theatrical (s. 1). In addition, Ac 20:34; 1 Cor 4:12; 1 Th 2:9; 2 Th 3:8 indicate that Paul’s work was of a technical nature and was carried out in metropolitan areas, where there would be large demand for such kind of work. What publics in other areas might understand is subject to greater question, for the evidence is primarily anecdotal.—JWeiss, Das Urchristentum 1917, 135; FGrosheide, Παῦλος σκηνοποιός: TSt 35, 1917, 241f; Zahn, AG II 632, 10; 634; Billerb. II 745–47; Beginn. IV, 223; PLampe, BZ 31, ’87, 211–21; RHock, The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship ’80.—M-M. TW.