Part 7

A careful study of the statues themselves and a consideration of all the evidence bearing on the question leads to the conclusion that the complete costume consists of two garments, a long under-dress, which may be regarded as the usual indoor costume of the Athenian ladies of the sixth century, and a mantle worn over it for out of doors; occasionally a scarf or shawl is worn as well over the mantle, perhaps for additional warmth, perhaps only for ornament. The under-dress consists of the long linen Ionic chiton, a wide cylindrical garment fastened by brooches or sewn down both arms so as to form sleeves; a girdle is worn round the waist, and the superfluous length of the material is drawn up over this girdle so as to form a deep pouch; sometimes this pouch is worn all round the figure, sometimes, as is apparently the case in a large seated figure of Athena, the pouch is formed only in front. On some occasions[136] we find that the chiton, in addition to the pouch, has an overfold from the neck resembling the ἀπόπτυγμα of the Doric peplos. This overfold sometimes only covers the chest and sometimes hangs down considerably lower. Such an overfold is very frequently found on vases; in some cases its material may be of one piece with that of the rest of the chiton, as it appears on one of the Nereids from the so-called Nereid monument; but in those many cases where it only appears between the shoulders and does not extend also along the arms, it is quite possible that it may be a separate piece of stuff sewn on to the chiton at the neck. It is probably the edge of such an overfold that appears at the waist below the himation on the Acropolis statues; no other satisfactory explanation of this detail of the costume has at present been suggested. It is unlikely that it represents the “kolpos,” because in all cases, with one possible exception (No. 676; Lechat, fig. 29), a border is painted on it, indicating that it is an edge and not a pouch. It has been suggested that this overfold was sometimes made of a different kind of material from the chiton on to which it was sewn, and that this material was a silk or linen of a crinkled texture, indicated by the wavy parallel lines which appear on the statues. The fact that this treatment appears sometimes also on the skirt and on the upper part of the mantle, diminishes the probability of this hypothesis, and makes it appear more likely that this kind of technique was simply used to represent very full folds in a fine material. Such a treatment may have been suggested to the artist by familiarity with some material of a crinkled texture, such as that used for sheets and table-cloths in some Greek villages to-day.

[136] _E.g._, Lechat, fig. 12.

With regard to the ornamental patterns which adorn the chiton, we find borders at the feet and at the edge of the overfold, also strips of ornamentation running round the neck and along the arms and round the arm-holes, and almost invariably a broad band running vertically down the front of the lower part of the chiton. In addition to these strips and borders we also get stars or small floral designs scattered over the whole garment. The bands which appear at the edges are easy to understand; they were either woven in the material of which they were made, or, more probably, embroidered on to it afterwards; but in those cases where the overfold is worn and a pattern appears at its edge and also along the neck and arms, we must suppose that this latter was applied after the sleeves were formed and the overfold attached. Possibly, also, the vertical band on the lower part of the chiton represents a separate strip of embroidery sewn on to the garment. The Greek women probably occupied a large proportion of their time in embroidery; and since a good piece of embroidery lasts for very many years, it is quite possible that when the original garment was worn out, they may have cut off the strip of still good work, and sewn it on to a new dress. The only other explanation of the numerous patterns which appear on the statues, is that the artist simply applied ornamentation wherever it pleased his fancy to do so; this is less satisfactory than to suppose that he was representing something which he actually saw.

Turning to the himation or mantle worn over the chiton, the simplest method of producing the effect seen in the Acropolis statues was found by experiment to be by taking a piece of material between 5 and 6 yards long and about 18 or 20 inches wide. This was folded double, as in the diagram at the point _a_, so that the points _b_ and _b′_ met. Then at the points _c_ and _c′_, at equal distances from the corners, and cutting off at little less than one-third of the wide length of the stuff, the two upper edges were fastened together on the model’s right shoulder, a few pleats or gathers being taken in the material on each side. A series of such fastenings was made along the upper arm, as far as the points _d_ and _d′_, which reached to the model’s elbow; the rest of the stuff, as far as the points _b_ and _b′_, was allowed to hang down from the elbow. The part of the material _c_ to _c′_ passed under the left arm and was arranged in a series of regular oblique folds running parallel to the box-pleat, which formed itself naturally at the first fastening on the shoulder—that is to say, at the points _c_ and _c′_; these folds were held in place by a band passing under the left breast, drawn rather tightly round the figure and secured firmly on the right shoulder. In order to make the lower edge of the cloak rise in the middle, as it does invariably in the statues, it was found necessary to draw the folds up over the band and let the upper edge fall over, forming a kind of frill. The frill, however, hung down too low, and it was this fact that suggested cutting the upper edge of the cloak out in a curve, or rather in two curves, one at the back and one at the front, leaving the part under the left arm longer than that in front and behind. When these curves were cut out and the garment once more arranged in its pleats, the little frill-like edge hung of itself over the band, just in the way in which it appears in some of the statues. The band alone held the folds fairly well in place; but in order to prevent the possibility of their slipping, the Athenian ladies probably had them stitched on to the band. It would be quite easy to slip the garment on and off over the head without even unfastening it on the shoulder.[137]

[137] Figs. 34, _a_ and _b_, are photographs of a model draped in this manner.

The variations in detail which appear in the different statues can easily be produced by arranging the folds in a slightly different fashion. In some cases, as for example in No. 674 (Lechat, pl. 1), the folds hang quite upright instead of obliquely, and the box-pleat appears in the middle instead of hanging from the shoulder; this can easily be produced by turning the folds first in one direction and then in the opposite. The folds of the frill sometimes hang in the opposite direction to those of the main part of the mantle; this is simply a mistake on the part of the artist. Occasionally the frill does not appear at all, for example in No. 686 (Lechat, fig. 37), but the cloak hangs straight down from the broad band. In this instance we must suppose that the overhanging mass of material has been cut away entirely before the folds were attached to the band.

Sometimes the two ends were sewn together along the lines _be_ and _b′e′_, and in this case the last fastening, indicated by the letters _d_ and _d′_, approached nearer to the points _b_ and _b′_, so as to leave an opening only sufficient for the arm to pass through.

The detail of the cloak which presents most variety is the little frill-like edge which falls over the band. Sometimes it appears to be a natural continuation of the vertical folds which hang down below it, and it falls over the band so as almost to hide it; sometimes it is shorter, and reveals the band and forms a sort of leaf-like pattern above it; in other cases it disappears entirely. Its most realistic representation is in one of the Victories in the Acropolis Museum, where the corners _c_ and _c′_, formed by cutting the curves, are actually indicated on the shoulder, and the frill lies in an irregular zigzag, almost exactly as it was found to fall in practice.

In two cases in the Acropolis Museum at Athens, and in a statue at Delphi, the band does not pass under the arm, but from shoulder to shoulder, and the cloak covers both arms symmetrically, being fastened down both alike with a series of brooches. In these cases the box-pleat falls in the middle, and the curve must necessarily have been considerably smaller, since the upper edge lies much higher up towards the neck. When the cloak was worn in this way, it was probably sewn up down both sides, and the curves for the neck, back and front, were naturally equidistant from the two side-seams. The openings for the arms would come at the ends of the top edge, as in the case of the Ionic chiton.

The style of dress represented by this set of monuments is certainly the most luxurious which we find in Greek art at any period. Now the date of the Acropolis maidens can be fixed at some period certainly not later than the last quarter of the sixth century. Solon’s sumptuary law regulating women’s dress must have been enacted during the first years of the sixth century, so that we may conclude that these dainty ladies with their chitons, cloaks, and scarfs represent the height of luxury in dress which was possible after the passing of that law: their self-satisfied smile seems to be inviting approval of the degree of elegance to which their ingenuity could attain, even though a stern law-giver had limited the number of their garments to three.

This style of dress seems to have passed out of fashion at the end of the sixth century, or in the early years of the fifth, for we find it only in the early works of sculpture already mentioned. An attempt to render it is frequently made by the artists of the early red-figured vases—sometimes with some success; but more often the attempt results in a confusion between this somewhat elaborate style of cloak and the simpler development which it took later. Fig. 35 shows a fairly successful attempt to represent the dress. Here we have the band passing round the right shoulder and the vertical folds falling from it, but the frill and the fastening down the right arm are omitted. Possibly they taxed the artist’s skill too greatly; possibly the style had already passed out of fashion in real life. But he would be moderately familiar with the maidens on the Acropolis, although perhaps not sufficiently so to be able to reproduce their costume in detail. Working daily in his little shop down below in the Cerameicus, perhaps he did not very frequently mount the citadel, where he might study the art treasures that adorned it. Possibly even the vase is not earlier than 480 B.C., and the picture is but a reminiscence of the statues that the artist had seen on the Acropolis previous to their burial at the coming of the Persians. Very often on the vases we find the vertical folds represented falling from beneath a series of horizontal folds obviously formed by turning over the top of the cloak before fastening it on the shoulder. Here the band and fastening down the arm are omitted.[138] The place of the frill is taken by an overfold of the cloak before it is put on, and it is fastened by a single brooch on the shoulder; the material is allowed to hang in natural folds, and the necessity of cutting a curve in the upper edge is obviated by the fact that no band is worn, and the stuff is not arranged in artificial vertical folds. This style of cloak appears already on the figure of Apollo, on the relief from Thasos in the Louvre; it is seen most clearly in the Artemis of Gabii.[139] It was probably developed from the earlier and more elaborate form of cloak by gradual stages, first by omitting the artificial folds and the band which held them in place, and then by omitting the numerous fastenings on the arm. This would necessitate an alteration in the shape of the cloak; it would naturally become more square. Kalkmann, in the article already referred to, fig. 17, represents an intermediate stage in this development, where a large cloak is worn without band or frill, and is fastened by a series of several brooches down one arm. Were it not for this representation of the transition stage, we might be inclined to class the cloak of the Artemis of Gabii as a development of the Doric peplos, which it resembles in having an overfold and being fastened by a single large brooch on the shoulder; and indeed these two elements are probably due to the influence of the Doric dress, and we should therefore, perhaps, more rightly call the final form of the cloak a blending of the two styles rather than a development of either the one or the other.

[138] Fig. 36.

[139] Fig. 37.

As early as the beginning of the fifth century we find the two styles becoming confused and mingled together. The Doric peplos is worn as an over-dress over the Ionic chiton, even by one of the “Maidens” of the Acropolis, and later on the commonest form of outdoor dress for women was the Ionic chiton with the Doric himation over it. This combination appears in the so-called Fates of the Parthenon pediment. Frequently we find this blending of the two styles in a single garment; we find also on vases the overgirt Doric peplos with sleeves formed by a number of brooches;[140] and again, with cross-bands, which belong properly to the Ionic chiton.[141] Some authorities, pinning their faith entirely to Herodotus, consider that the brooch is an element which belongs strictly only to the Doric dress; they therefore regard the chiton with pinned sleeves as a mixture of the two. An over-garment not very simple in form, which can be regarded as neither Doric nor Ionic, but a mixture of both, is illustrated by Fig. 38. Kalkmann regards it as a number of overfolds or flounces sewn separately on to the chiton. It seems more reasonable, however, to regard the part of the dress which appears on the arms and at the feet, and which is made of a plain material, as the chiton, and the rest which is ornamented with a pattern, as a separate over-garment. This garment has three edges, at the waist, hips, and ankles, so that it is obviously not merely an ordinary rectangular himation, nor a simple Doric peplos with overfold. It seems simplest to explain it as a Doric peplos with deep overfold, ungirt, having a short false overfold to the waist sewn on over the real one at the neck. Such over-garments never occur in sculpture and only rarely on the vases, and may possibly be an error or invention on the part of the vase-painter; if commonly worn, they would probably be more frequently represented in art.

[140] B.M., E. 336.

[141] Athens Central Museum, 1285.

VI

MATERIALS AND ORNAMENTATION

The fabrics in use for Greek dresses presented considerable variety. The commonest materials were naturally woollen, but linen and silk were used for more luxurious garments, and a kind of leather jerkin known as διφθέρα[142] was sometimes worn by peasants.

[142] Aristophanes, _The Clouds_, 72; Plato, _Crito_, 53 D.

That the woollen materials used themselves varied considerably in texture, is proved by some fragments actually found in a tomb at Kertch in the Crimea, and published in the _Comptes rendus_ in 1878. These date for the most part from the fourth century B.C., but one at least probably goes back to the fifth century. They are in most cases rather loosely woven, so that the separate threads are clearly visible, and a bright object could be seen through the material. The oldest piece is composed of such fine threads that it is almost transparent; other pieces have a texture not unlike that of woollen crêpe. A somewhat coarser piece, the threads of which are very strong, has a portion of a seam remaining, which is oversewn with strong woollen thread. In addition to very finely woven woollen materials, the more luxurious of the Greeks wore also many varieties of linen, and in some cases even silk. Pollux tells us that the long linen chiton was worn by the Athenians and Ionians, and many references are to be found in ancient literature to different kinds of linen, coming from places usually in Asia or the more easterly of the Ægean islands. Of these the most commonly mentioned are ἀμόργινα, garments made of linen from the flax of Amorgos, and βύσσινα, made of βύσσος, a yellowish kind of flax, coming especially from India and Egypt. We learn from Aristophanes[143] that the χιτώνιον ἀμόργινον was transparent, so that we may conclude that the linen from which it was made was very fine indeed; perhaps it resembled a very fine cambric. That βύσσος was a linen of some kind, we are told by Pausanias,[144] and Pollux gives us the information that it came from India. That it was known in Egypt also, is testified by Herodotus,[145] who tells us of its use for mummy-cloths. It was probably rather a mark of luxury when worn by the Greeks, for Simætha[146] tells us that she wore a χιτών of it when going out on a festive occasion.

[143] _Lys._, 150.

[144] VI., 21.

[145] II., 86.

[146] Theocritus, II., 73.

Of materials which come under the heading of silk, three kinds were known to the ancients. We read in Latin authors of _vestes coæ_, _bombycinæ_, and _sericæ_, and these were also known to the Greeks. Aristotle[147] is the first of the ancient writers who tells us anything of the production of silk. After describing the various changes undergone by the worm before becoming a moth, he gives us the following information:—

Ἐκ δὲ τούτου τοῦ ζῴου καὶ τὰ βουβύκια ἀναλύουσι τῶν γυναικῶν τινές ἀναπηνιζόμεναι, κἄπειτα ὑφαίνουσιν· πρώτη δὲ λέγεται ὑφῆναι ἐν Κῷ Παμφίλη Πλάτεω θυγάτηρ.

“Some women undo the cocoons of this creature, winding off the silk, and then weave it; and Pamphile, daughter of Plateus, is said to have been the first to weave it in Cos.” This implies that the manufacture of silk was carried on in Cos, but no information is given as to whether the worm was reared in that island or whether the raw silk was imported. Pliny[148] tells us more on the subject; he seems to distinguish the three kinds of silk mentioned above. Of these three, only “sericum” is, strictly speaking, silk—that is to say, a material made by unwinding the cocoon of the silkworm reared on the mulberry tree. This worm is first mentioned by Pausanias.[149] It was the Chinese who discovered this method of procuring the silk, and it was apparently unknown to the Greeks and Romans. The “coa” and “bombycina” were procured by piercing and carding the cocoon instead of unwinding them entire; the result was a substance coarser and less brilliant than silk. Pliny draws a distinction between “coa” and “bombycina,” telling us that the latter was a product of Assyria and came from the ordinary mulberry worm, whereas the worm from which coan silk was procured was reared on other trees, notably the oak, ash, and cypress.[150]

[147] _Hist. Anim._, v., 19.

[148] _Hist. Nat._, xi.

[149] VI., xxvi., 6.

[150] For silk generally, see Daremberg and Saglio, _s.v._ “coa”; Smith, _Dictionary of Antiquities_, _s.v._ “sericum”; Yates, _Textrinum Antiquorum_, pp. 160 f.; Pariset, _Histoire de la Soie_, Part I., chap. i.

_Coæ vestes_ are frequently mentioned by the Latin poets, chiefly Horace, Tibullus, and Propertius, and from them we learn that they were chiefly worn by _Hetairæ_ and were of a transparent texture;[151] sometimes they were purple and had gold threads interwoven or embroidered.[152] One piece of silk was found amongst other materials at Kertch. In colour it is a bronze-gold, and is woven in a lozenge pattern.

[151] Propertius, I., 2; Horace, _Satires_, I., ii., 101.

[152] Horace, _Odes_, IV., xiii.; Tibullus, II., 6.

If Greek dress lacked variety of cut and material, the deficiency was to some extent made up by considerable gaiety of colour and ornamentation. Probably none but slaves and artisans would wear garments of one colour without pattern or ornamentation of any kind, and even they would sometimes have their dresses adorned with a simple border, such as a broad stripe. From the numerous references scattered up and down through extant literature, it appears that the favourite colours were purple, red, and yellow. Pollux[153] gives us a list of the colours most commonly used. This list includes green (βατραχίς) and gray (κίλλιον, ὀνάγρινον), in addition to those mentioned above, but strangely enough no mention is made of blue. The word κυάνεος, “dark blue,” is seldom if ever applied to garments, yet it is scarcely likely that the colour was unknown to the Greeks. Possibly some shades described as πορφύρεος approached a violet, or blue, as distinguished from ἁλοῦργος, “true purple.” For red we find the word φοινίκεος, “dark red,” used especially of the military cloak of the Lacedæmonians,[154] and κοκκοβαφής, “scarlet”; for yellow κροκωτός and θάψινος. Βατραχίς, “frog-coloured,” is the word applied to a green garment, and this is probably the colour described as ὀμφάνικος, “like unripe grapes.” Pollux[155] tells us that for mourning the Greeks wore φαιὸν καὶ μέλαν ἀλλήλοις ἔγγυς, “gray and black, very like each other.” From this we learn that φαιός was a very dark colour, probably gray or dun.

[153] Chap. lviii.

[154] Aristophanes, _Pax_, 1173; _Lys._, 1140.

[155] 58.

The ornamentation applied to dress by the Greeks was very varied in character; it is comparatively rare to find on Greek vases a dress that is entirely free from decorations, and the patterns represented are very numerous. Sometimes the ornament consists of a simple border, often of a pattern distributed all over the dress, and these designs are frequently of a very elaborate character, including animal and even human forms. In sculpture, too, this feature was not neglected; the maidens of the Acropolis at Athens all have some pattern on their draperies added in colour, and one of them has no less than seven different designs distributed over her costume. We know that the himation of the Olympian Zeus by Pheidias was richly decorated, and the fragment from Damophon’s great group at Lycosura will serve as a later example of sculptured drapery highly ornamented with patterns in relief. This has not only geometric and floral designs as borders, but the whole surface is covered with fantastic dancing figures of human and hybrid forms.

References in literature are not very frequent; the most noteworthy occurs in the _Iliad_,[156] where Helen is described as working at a great loom:

ἣ δὲ μέγαν ἱστὸν ὕφαινεν δίπλακα πορφυρέην, πολέας δ᾽ ἐνέπασσεν ἀέθλους Τρώων θ᾽ ἱπποδάμων καὶ Ἀχαιῶν χαλκοχιτώνων.

“She was weaving a great purple web of double fold, and over it she spread many battles of horse-taming Trojans and bronze-clad Achæans.”

[156] iii., 125.