If we may draw any conclusion from the above-mentioned facts as to the differences between Doric and Ionic costume, these do not appear to be fundamental, affecting the shape and appearance of the whole dress, but rather to have depended essentially on the mode of wearing, for the Doric chiton was shaped by pinning, the Ionic constructed by sewing. There is, however, a difference of material, since the Doric chiton was woollen and the Ionic linen. Nor must we understand Herodotus to mean that the Doric dress disappeared entirely after the introduction of the Ionic, for the monuments show us clearly that both kinds existed side by side; so that just at the time of Herodotus the chiton, which, at any rate in its upper part, was not sewn, but fastened by pins or buttons, was the more common. It is true that fashion, which was just as important in antiquity as now, is apparent in various changes, and these are especially conspicuous in pictures by the vase painters of the fifth century, such as Hiero, Duris, Brygos, etc. On these monuments (compare Figs. [4], [18], [19]) the female dress is much wider and fuller than before, the kolpos goes all round the
Fig. 16.
body, and falls down below the hips almost to the knees. There is a sort of mantle, which falls a little way below the breast; there are almost always sleeves, as there were in the previous fashion, but they are generally less puffed and have no narrow armhole, but a wide opening at the arms. The mode of putting on the chiton is also different, and corresponds to the Doric fashion; the sleeves are not sewn together all round, but have a slit at the top, so that when the chiton is put on it is quite open there. The drawing together of the sleeve openings by little fibulae or buttons fastens the chiton together at the neck, and gives the whole dress consistency. Fig. [17], a cithara player about to tie, or possibly to unloose, the girdle which fastens her upper garment, shows this method of putting on and fastening the upper garment very plainly. However, the bib, which is usually found, is absent here.
Fig. 18.
But if we look somewhat more closely at this costume, we find in it a sort of combination of the Doric and Ionic. The mantle is due to the former, the kolpos to the latter: the fastening with fibulae is characteristic of the former, the sewing of the latter. For we must regard a chiton like that worn by the Maenad on the left in Fig. [18] as one connected piece, one wide garment, more than twice the length of the body, sewn together round the sides, open at top and bottom, out of which the wearer constructed the bib and sleeves by drawing up the folds and letting them fall over the girdle, and by fastening or buttoning on the arms and shoulders. There is, however, reason to suppose that parts of this dress were sometimes separately constructed of different material. On the vase pictures of that period the various parts of the dress are sometimes characterised by different drapery. As a rule, the folds of the dress are marked by unbroken black lines: but, besides these, we sometimes find reddish brown, zigzag, or wavy lines (thus in Fig. [17], the upper part of the woman’s dress; in Fig. [18], the kolpos of the Maenad on the right; in Fig. [19], the kolpos and the sleeve). When we observe (as in Fig. [18]) that in other figures the corresponding parts of the dress are all marked by the same lines, we find ourselves almost forced to the conclusion that the artists wished to represent distinct garments separately put on, especially as this distinction of unbroken and zigzag folds can also be traced in sculpture. It would be very easy to imagine it in such a dress as that in Fig. [17]; for if in Fig. [16] the upper garment above the girdle is distinct, it might also be the case in Fig. [17]. But such an assumption would be more difficult, nay, almost impossible, for Fig. [18]. If we assume distinct material for the kolpos, the woman would be wearing three separate garments—the long chiton, which simply covers the whole body, the kolpos, and over that a distinct upper garment with sleeves. The dress in Fig. [19] would be no less complicated. It seems, therefore, that we ought not to lay too much stress on that treatment of the folds; probably the artists made use of it in order to distinguish sometimes between the wavy folds of full garments, sleeves, etc., and the stiff folds of the perpendicular skirt. For we may observe that the wavy folds are never found in these perpendicular garments, such as the chiton and the bib.