Greek dress

by Ethel Beatrice Abrahams

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Fig. 33.