Chapter V: Introduction: Pre-Hellenic (3)

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._

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.

The epithet ποικίλος, applied to dress, undoubtedly means “richly decorated,” and the ἀνθινά, “flowered garments,” frequently mentioned in inscriptions, presumably refers to garments ornamented with floral designs. In connection with the passage in Homer, the question has been raised as to whether these complex designs were woven into the material or embroidered afterwards. It seems hardly likely that they were woven in, unless the work were a heavy tapestry, such as would hardly be suitable for a costume; moreover, the word ἐμπάσσω means “to sprinkle on,” and is more easily applicable to the distribution of a design over a piece of material already woven than to the formation of a pattern in the course of the weaving. The words μέγαν, ἱστὸν, and ὔφαινεν would still be applicable, because when the garment was at this stage, it would still be regarded as incomplete, and the designs, however applied, would probably be at least sketched out while it was still on the loom.

Among the fragments of materials found at Kertch were some which were embroidered, others which had simple geometrical designs woven into the borders; in addition to these there were some considerable fragments of a large sarcophagus cover, the ornamentation of which is strongly reminiscent of Greek vase-painting of the fourth century. The ground is black and is covered with designs in red and light terra-cotta; the ornamentation is divided into bands, and consists of battle scenes with chariots, and birds and beasts scattered about the field of the design; the bands are separated by different patterns, many of which are frequently met with on vases. These include the egg and dart pattern, ivy and laurel wreaths, large palmettes, and many others.[157] Names are inscribed against some of the figures, among others ΝΙΚΗ, ΑΘΗΝΑΙΗ ΙΟΚΑΣΤΗ, (Ι)ΓΓΟΜΕΔΩΝ, etc.

[157] Figs. 39 and 41 _a_ and _b_.

These designs are not embroidered, nor are they produced in the course of weaving the cloth; they are apparently drawn out by means of some pigment applied after the material was woven. Herodotus tells us[158] that the people of the Caucasus used to paint animals on their clothes with some vegetable pigment which they mixed with water. Some such procedure, then, must have been practised by the Greeks of the fourth century, which is the date assignable to the fragment in question, on the evidence of the inscriptions.

[158] I., 203.

The designs applied to Greek dresses presented abundant variety, as is evidenced by extant monuments, especially by the vases; they may be roughly classed as geometric, floral, and those containing animal and human forms. Of the geometric designs some are rectilinear, others curvilinear. The favourite rectilinear borders are broad lines, parallel rows of zigzag lines, the mæander or key pattern in very many forms varying from the simple running mæander to a complicated double fret, broken at intervals by stars or chequers. In addition to these borders we frequently find a chequer pattern covering the whole surface of a garment. A kind of net pattern, often seen on vases, was very probably used in dresses also. Of the curvilinear designs the most common are the “guilloche” or plait-band, the simple spiral, and the κυμάτιον or wave pattern. On the black-figured vases a kind of scale pattern frequently occurs covering a wide surface.

A very great variety of floral designs was used by the Greeks for ornamentation of all kinds; they are very frequent as part of the scheme of decoration of vases, especially of those of Ionic origin. A favourite pattern is a simple laurel wreath like that depicted in Fig. 39; the ivy also forms the basis of more than design. Sometimes it takes the form of a row of leaves on either side of a straight line; more often the leaves alternate with tendrils and berries. By far the commonest and the most beautiful of floral designs are those made up of lotus buds and flowers and palmettes. Sometimes we find the lotus alone forming the motive of the design, sometimes it alternates with palmettes. A very graceful pattern is composed of oblique palmettes turned in opposite directions and connected by spirals.[159] That these designs so commonly used for the decoration of pottery were employed also in the textile arts is proved by some of the fragments found at Kertch. Quite considerable remains were found of a piece of woollen material elaborately embroidered with a large floral design (Fig. 40), the main motive of which is a graceful palmette, from the base of which spring spirals terminating in heart-shaped leaves and flowers. The design is executed in gold and green on a violet ground.[160]

[159] For patterns generally, see H. B. Walters, _History of
Ancient Pottery_, ii., 209-235; Riegl, _Stilfragen_.

[160] For colouring, see _Comptes rendus_, 1878.

Animal and human forms are naturally less common than geometric and floral designs. Mention has already been made of the wonderful diplax woven by Helen, in which she represented scenes of battle between Trojans and Achæans. In art we find that goddesses are frequently depicted wearing garments covered with elaborate ornamentation of this kind. The François vase will afford several examples, and in later art the dress of Demeter on the Triptolemus vase by Hieron,[161] and the sculptured drapery from Damophon’s group at Lycosura, may be quoted. That mortals also indulged in such luxurious ornamentation is proved again by the Kertch fragments. One of the most charming pieces found there had a very naturalistic design of ducks embroidered in gold and green on a dark-brown ground (Fig. 41 _c_); another piece had a figure of an Amazon riding on horseback; and mention has already been made of the sarcophagus cloth covered with battle scenes.

[161] British Museum, E. 140. Fig. 14, above.

VII

HAIR AND HEAD-DRESS

The manner of wearing the hair seems to have varied considerably at different periods, both for men and women. In pre-Hellenic times it was, for the most part, if not invariably, allowed to grow long. On the frescoes from Knossos we find the cupbearer and other male figures represented wearing their hair in long, wavy tresses reaching to the waist or thereabouts. On Mycenæan gems and rings, where warriors are represented wearing helmets, the hair is frequently concealed, so that it is impossible to determine whether it was worn short or bound up in some manner, so as to be out of the way. The ivory statuettes of athletes from Knossos have long hair,[162] so that in all probability that was the prevailing fashion among men in Crete. Among women in pre-Hellenic times, the fashion was to wear the hair long; the snake goddess and her votary have hair that reaches far past the waist, and in almost all extant art of the period the hair of the women is represented as being abundant. It is frequently worn in long tresses down the back (compare the dancing girl, Fig. 4) and arranged rather elaborately in front in curls, which sometimes suggest artificial treatment; sometimes the hair is done up at the back or top of the head, in modern fashion.

[162] See _British School Annual_, 1901-2, VIII., 72, fig. 37.

In the Homeric poems we read of the “long-haired Achæans,”[163] so that the sight of men with long hair was obviously familiar to the poet. From the passage which describes Andromache’s swoon,[164] however, it is clear that the women of the poet’s day bound their hair up, using nets and kerchiefs and other appurtenances both useful and ornamental.

[163] _Iliad_, ii., 443, 472.

[164] _Ibid._, xxii., 468 f.