Part 6

The himation worn over the Ionic chiton presents considerable variety of shape and arrangement. In very many cases we find that the Doric himation is worn, whether over both shoulders or only over one. In the Harpy monument, where we might have looked for Ionic dress in its purest form, we find the Doric himation worn over the fine linen-sleeved chiton, and on very many of the red-figured vases of the severe style this is the case. There is one set of monuments, however, which may be considered as Ionic in origin, or at least of Ionizing tendencies, where a far less simple garment takes the place of the Doric himation. This set includes the archaic female statues and flying victories of the Acropolis Museum at Athens, and a large number of small painted terra-cotta statuettes in the same museum, the sculptures of the Treasury of the Cnidians at Delphi, and a number of other statues and reliefs from Athens, Eleusis, Delos, and elsewhere. The dress presents a somewhat complicated appearance at first sight, and has given rise to a considerable amount of discussion. The following section is based upon a careful study of the original monuments and of the literature already written on the subject.

V

THE MAIDENS OF THE ACROPOLIS

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE IONIC HIMATION

The problem of the drapery of the archaic female figures in the Acropolis Museum has been considered by various archæologists, but has not yet been satisfactorily solved in all its details by any of them. The questions to be decided are: Firstly, are we to suppose that the draperies of the statues give us a faithful and realistic reproduction of a costume actually in fashion among the Athenian ladies at the close of the sixth century, or must we take into account the fact that the work is still archaic and the artists have not yet sufficiently mastered their material to be able to reproduce exactly what they saw before them? Secondly, what are the separate garments which constitute the elaborately complicated whole? And thirdly, how are these garments arranged so as to produce the effect seen in the statues?

The answer to our first question is to be found in a compromise lying somewhere between the two hypotheses suggested. The early artist, struggling with the technical difficulties of his art, is always ready, as soon as he has solved one problem to his satisfaction, to pass on to something which presents still greater difficulties and demands the exercise of still greater skill. The makers of the Acropolis maidens have advanced so far as to be able to infuse some sort of life into their work;—witness the lively expression on some of the faces. Moreover, in the modelling of some parts of the human figure they have reached a high degree of excellence. In the few cases in which the feet of the statues are preserved, a great degree of delicacy and refinement is displayed, which shows that the artists had attained some considerable power over their material. Having advanced so far, they feel themselves equal to facing the problem of representing drapery in sculpture. It is not to be supposed that at this stage of artistic development they would invent difficulties which did not naturally present themselves, nor would they attempt to represent anything that they had not actually seen; therefore, we must conclude that the Athenian ladies of the period actually wore a dress corresponding closely to that reproduced in art. At the same time, it must be remembered that the Greek artist in all probability did not work with a model constantly before him, so that we must expect some slight differences in detail on that account; furthermore, we must make some allowance for archaism; for example, in all the statues under discussion, the drapery does not fall freely away from the figure, but follows the lines of the form beneath in a manner impossible in real life.

Having determined that the artists have represented a dress which was actually worn, we must proceed to consider the character of the dress as a whole, and of the parts of which it consisted. In giving a general description it will be best to take an example which exhibits all, or nearly all, the characteristics that can be collected from the various statues. No. 594 will serve our purpose. (Perrot and Chipiez, pl. xii.; Lechat, _Au Musée de l’Acropole_, fig. 16.)[127] The under-garment which appears on the neck and left arm is represented by a series of fine wavy lines, running parallel to one another, which give a crinkled appearance, and may possibly be meant to indicate a material which has undergone some special treatment in the making. This garment is finished at the neck and down the upper part of the arm by an ornamental border, originally painted, but from which the colour has now almost entirely disappeared. The lower part of the figure is covered by a very long and ample garment, which I shall hope to prove to be the same as that which covers the left shoulder and upper arm. This garment is ornamented with a broad and elaborate meander pattern down the middle of the front; and if the statue were not broken, we should probably see another border round the bottom. So far, the costume is comparatively simple; but above this under-garment is worn a cloak which passes under the left arm and is drawn up to the right shoulder, where it is fastened so as to hang in heavy vertical folds down the right-hand side of the figure, back and front; in most cases we shall find that the cloak is fastened by a series of buttons along the upper part of the arm, as far as the curve of the elbow. The example before us now has an additional wrap, which conceals the fastening down the right arm. The rest of the cloak, passing under the left arm, hangs in a series of oblique but almost vertical folds, running parallel to a box-pleat which starts from the shoulder. These folds are apparently held in place by a band passing under the left arm and fixed on the other shoulder. The upper edge of the cloak hangs over this band in a sort of little frill with a zigzag edge. The mass of folds lying close to the figure under the left arm represents the material which forms the sleeve of the chiton. The additional wrap seen in one or two of the statues is a very simple matter; it consists of a large scarf worn over the shoulders, hanging down to a point on the left-hand side; it leaves the left arm uncovered, passes round the back, and over the right shoulder. Instead of hanging straight down to a point in the right-hand side, the end of the scarf is turned up and thrown over the arm. The end is broken away in No. 594, but appears in another instance (No. 684, Acropolis Museum; Perrot and Chipiez, fig. 297, p. 592). Both cloak and scarf are bordered with patterns, of which the colour still remains to some extent.

[127] Fig. 31.

Many theories have been advanced as to the various garments which compose the costume. It will be well to give a brief summary of them, and to point out wherein they fall short, and, if possible, to substitute one that is more satisfactory.

The chief point at issue is whether the skirt part of the drapery belongs to the chiton—that is to say, to the garment which appears on the neck and left arm—or whether it is part of the cloak which passes under the left arm and is fastened on the right shoulder. Collignon even distinguishes three garments; he believes that the skirt is the chiton proper, and that the crinkled texture of the piece which appears above the himation is meant to represent some sort of woollen jersey worn over the chiton, which he calls the “chitoniscus.”

The difference in texture comes out very plainly in those cases where the himation is worn over the shoulders like a shawl, or where it is omitted altogether; for example, in Nos. 670 and 671.[128]

[128] Lechat, figs. 8 and 9; Perrot and Chipiez, 290 and 292.

At first sight it appears as though two separate garments were intended, but on close examination it will be found that the curved line which terminates the wavy lines of the upper section has not the appearance of an edge, but appears rather to turn under and to represent a pouch, formed by pulling the garment up through the girdle. Moreover, in some cases these parallel wavy lines appear on the skirt as well, and cover the whole surface with the exception of the mass of folds hanging down the middle of the front. This can clearly be seen in No. 687 (Lechat, p. 161), in a small statue of the same type from Eleusis, now in the National Museum, Athens, and in the relief of the Charites in the Acropolis Museum (Lechat, pl. 3). Again, the same technique is found sometimes introduced into the rendering of the himation. Frequently on the shoulder, when the cloak is fastened, a succession of these wavy parallel lines begins to appear, then stops suddenly, and the rest of the garment presents a smooth surface.[129] There can be no question here of a difference of material, nor of a separate piece of drapery, so that we must look for some other explanation of the different treatment. Lechat has offered one which is satisfactory and which finds confirmation in other monuments. He says “the difference in the appearance of the upper and lower part of the same garment is due to this: that in the lower part, all the superfluous material is gathered together in a single mass, and the rest is drawn tightly across the legs; while in the upper part, the material, being left free, falls in regular folds all round the body.” He further suggests that the regularity of the folds may be meant to represent some artificial treatment of the dress, such as is applied to the modern _fustanella_. The archaism of the work, however, is sufficient to account for this regularity in representing a series of very full folds in a fine material held in rather closely to the figure. The same kind of treatment appears on many of the red-figured vases of the best period. One from a vase by Euphronios is reproduced by Kalkmann (_Jahrbuch_, vol. ix.); it occurs also on the well-known Troilus vase by the same artist, and in numerous other instances (Klein, _Euphronios_, p. 215). Above the girdle the folds are represented by fine parallel wavy lines drawn very close together below by straight lines. In these cases there is no questioning the fact that only one garment is intended, so that we may conclude that in the case of the Acropolis statues too, there is no need to suppose that the difference in texture represents two separate garments of different materials.

[129] See Fig. 32.

It has been suggested that there may be an intention on the part of the artist to indicate some kind of material that had a crinkled texture, such as that of some of the modern Greek stuffs; but if this were so, we might reasonably expect to find the same technique all over the garment, and the comparison with the vases shows that the supposition is not necessary.

We may conclude, then, that in those cases where the himation is omitted altogether, the figure is draped in a single garment, namely, the long Ionic chiton described above.

In the case of these statues, the chiton is exceptionally long; there is still some material left trailing on the ground after the formation of the deep “kolpos,” which necessitates the skirt being held up in one hand, so as not to impede walking. We are at once reminded of the Ἰάονες Ἑλκεχίτωνες of the Homeric Hymn to Apollo.

We have next to consider those cases—and they are in the majority—where another garment is worn over the chiton; and it is on this point that archæologists are at variance. Many maintain that the chiton only appears on the upper left-hand side of the figure, and that a very large cloak is worn over it, which covers the whole of the rest of the chiton, and has a deep overfold at the top and trails on the ground behind, being held up in front and drawn aside in the left hand. Studniczka supports this view, and calls the garment an “ionisirende Peplos.” Holwerda, in an article in the _Jahrbuch_ for 1904, gives some drawings of some practical experiments he has made in draping a model in a garment of this kind. He supposes that it is cylindrical in shape, with a deep overfold, which is shorter on the shoulder than elsewhere, and so produces a zigzag line along its lower edge when draped; a girdle is worn underneath the overfold, through which the superfluous length left by shortening the overfold on the shoulder can be drawn. He supposes that the garment was drawn tightly round under the left arm, and that its upper edge formed the frill which we see in many of the Acropolis statues. A comparison between his finished model and the statue which he reproduces beside it serves to show the points wherein his theory falls short; it in no way accounts for the vertical folds of the cloak, nor for the tight band which appears passing under the left arm and fastened on the right shoulder. Amelung, writing in Pauly-Wissowa’s _Real Encyclopädie_, and Professor E. A. Gardner, in his _Handbook of Greek Sculpture_, maintain that the garment is simply a Doric peplos fastened on one shoulder instead of both, and held in place by a tight band, under which the width of the peplos is arranged in vertical folds. The main objections to this theory are that the Doric peplos is invariably fastened in one place only on the shoulder, whereas the fastening of the garment in question is continued by a series of brooches down as far as the elbow; the result would be to leave a very heavy and cumbersome mass of material hanging from the right arm, which would seriously impede any active motion. Moreover, it leaves out of account a piece of material which appears almost invariably in front, below the zigzag edge, where it is drawn up highest.[130] Holwerda takes it to be a girdle, but it has not the appearance of a girdle; it hangs over the material that falls from below it, and does not cut into the soft stuff in the way in which a girdle would. That the makers of these statues knew how to represent a girdle is plain from No. 679,[131] where the Doric peplos is worn over the Ionic chiton. In this case the peplos is considerably shorter than the chiton, so that the latter garment is plainly seen below the peplos, which only hangs down to a distance somewhat above the ankles. The Caryatid of the Cnidian Treasury at Delphi has the girdle clearly represented below the box-pleat by two parallel, horizontal, incised lines. On the frieze of the same building some of the figures are represented wearing the Doric peplos as an over-garment; in these cases also it is shorter than the chiton, which invariably appears below it at the feet. An archaic statue from Rhamnus, in Attica, now in the British Museum, has the crinkly chiton showing at the feet, and over it a himation with a deep overfold reaching considerably below the waist; in addition to this overfold a pleated frill appears over the breast, but no band is visible; the frill, however, is deeper than is usually the case in the Acropolis statues, and might be intended to conceal a band. This over-dress is sewn up at the side, and in that respect resembles the Doric peplos. It is significant that in this case, where the garment might with more reason be regarded as a Doric peplos let down from one shoulder, the chiton is seen appearing below it at the feet, and the over-dress does not reach to the ankles. In the few cases where the feet of the Acropolis statues are preserved, it will be noticed that the skirt is held up fairly high towards one side, so as to display the ankle. If a long under-garment were worn, we should expect its lower edge to be seen here; but in no instance is that the case, so that we may conclude that the skirt itself is the under-garment. Those who maintain that the skirt belongs to the upper garment support their opinion by the fact that very frequently the ornamentation on the two different parts is the same; the natural colour of the marble is left as a ground, and the decoration consists of coloured borders and patterns dotted somewhat sparsely over the surface. The part of the dress which appears on the left shoulder is frequently painted all over, and we might have expected that if the skirt belonged to the same garment it would also be painted all over. But before accepting this argument as conclusive, it will be well to consider the nature and purpose of polychromy as applied to Greek sculpture.

[130] Perrot and Chipiez, VIII., pls. 5 and 12; Lechat, 22, 29, 30, etc. This feature comes out clearly in fig. 31.

[131] Perrot and Chipiez, VIII., fig. 303; Lechat, fig. 31.

In the early days when inferior materials were used for sculpture, colour was applied to them to conceal the poverty of the stone and to produce a more pleasing surface than that offered by the rough material at the artist’s disposal. These coarser materials were not capable of such careful finish, or of producing such a lively play of light and shade, as the marbles later used, and the only way to give them animation was by the application of colour all over the surface. It became, therefore, a regular practice for early Greek sculptors to paint their statues. When, however, they began to use more beautiful materials, such as marble, they recognised that it was a pity to conceal its texture by the extensive application of colour. They therefore adopted the practice of submitting the surface of the marble to a process of polishing, and adding colour only in parts, the effect being that the beauty of the marble is enhanced by the contrast between its polished surface and the coloured parts of the statue. The range of colours used is somewhat limited and conventional. For example, in the early pediment groups from the Acropolis, we find red used for human flesh; and the colours used in the draperies of the Acropolis female statues are limited to red and blue. Both eyes and hair are invariably red. We may infer, therefore, that colour was not added with a view to reproducing nature faithfully, but simply to decorate the statues. If, therefore, the artist felt that a white surface of marble with a few patterns sprinkled over it produced a more pleasing effect than a surface coloured all over, he would use this method of decorating his work, even if it were not realistic; and he would prefer to treat large surfaces of drapery in this way, rather than colour them all over. When, therefore, in these statues, we find that the small surface of the chiton which appears on the upper part of the figure is coloured all over, we need not conclude that the skirt belongs to another garment because it is differently ornamented; had so large a surface been painted all over, the effect would have been far less pleasing. The difference in the decoration of different parts of the same garment need in no way surprise us; it occurs very frequently in the black-figured vases, where we get purple used for the upper part of a garment and black for the lower, simply with the object of producing variety. The argument from the application of coloured ornament will not help us, then, in this case, especially when we find that it can be used to support either view. Professor Baldwin Brown has pointed out that some terra-cotta figures[132] in the Acropolis Museum, which are draped in the same style as the archaic statues, have the under-garment covering the shoulder and the skirt painted in one colour, and the part which passes round the figure under the left arm in another, and he uses this fact as a piece of evidence to show that the skirt is part of the chiton and the rest a separate garment.[133] It will be safer, therefore, in considering the different garments which constitute the dress, to leave the question of colour out of account altogether, and to base our arguments only on their form. Many who maintain that the skirt is part of the chiton, are of the opinion that the upper garment is the ordinary himation with a small overfold, fastened on the shoulder and down the arm. Lechat supposes that the upper edge is taken up and drawn from beneath and folded over on itself, so as to form a sort of thick pad at the top, and he suggests that the pleats were folded before the cloak was put on, and perhaps even ironed; but this arrangement would not produce the vertical folds which we find in almost all the statues.

[132] Cp. _Jahrbuch_, 1893; Arch. Anz., H. 519; Winter.

[133] Another possibility which suggests itself is that the sculptor may not have painted the statue himself, but may have handed it over to a painter who did not understand how the drapery was constituted.

Kalkmann[134] calls the garment a “stilisirte himation,” and suggests that the vertical lines are continued round the figure because the artist had great difficulty in representing the transition between the vertical folds which hang down from the arm and the horizontal ones of the overfold. This explanation, however, does not account for the frill-like edge which appears at the top of the himation. Professor Baldwin Brown[135] has published some good photographs of a model draped in this Ionian himation, but has not given a very full or satisfactory explanation of how the effect was produced. He says that the secret of the dress is that “the upper edge of it, with all the folds, is tightly rolled over so that it is shortened in the front, while at the same time the folds are kept in their places.” He admits that the folds will only keep in place on a “motionless wearer of imperturbable patience,” and therefore supposes that the dress was evolved for use on the wooden xoana. It seems unlikely that a special dress of such an elaborate nature should have been evolved to drape these early wooden images, and there is no reason to suppose that the series of Acropolis statues are merely reproductions of such images. They appear much rather to represent the grand Athenian ladies who dedicated themselves symbolically to their patron goddess by setting up statues of themselves in her honour. Since the statues were probably intended to be set up permanently in a conspicuous place, it is natural that the votaries would like to see themselves appearing in their best clothes.

[134] _Jahrbuch_, xi.

[135] _How Greek Women Dressed._