bright hues, and they were especially fond of saffron-coloured dresses, and also of materials with coloured borders and rich designs. Generally speaking, we may infer from the works of art that bright colour and rich ornamentation were most popular in the oldest period, and afterwards again in the epoch of declining taste; while the classic period made but a sparing use of either. The older vase pictures almost always represent materials with coloured patterns, either purely ornamental designs (compare Figs. [10], [11], [13]), or with representations of figures. Sometimes whole scenes full of figures in coloured embroidery were part of the dress, and this was sometimes arranged in rows, like the decorations on pots in ancient art. (Compare Fig. [12].) This is quite natural if we consider that in the more ancient costume there was scarcely any drapery; both the chiton and the cloak were drawn tightly round the figure, and, therefore, the pictures could be fully developed and seen without any interruption from folds. Purely ornamental patterns are also very common, and show great variety, but very seldom good designs. Checks and diamonds were especially popular.
Fig. 28.
As the fashion in dress changed, so did the use of materials with patterns; for garments worn at religious ceremonies, or by actors, the coloured embroidery was retained; but in ordinary life the men, and even women, gradually discarded it, or at any rate reduced it to moderate proportions compared with the rich fulness of ornament in the older fashion, which almost concealed the real colour of the dress. This is especially noticeable in the chiton when it falls in free folds, while the old-fashioned chiton, which had very few folds, bore bolder designs. It is also the case with the himation, which even in the classic period, when it no longer fell stiff and straight over the back, but was drawn round the body in plentiful drapery, was often richly adorned with embroidery. The reason is probably because such shawl-like garments are more loosely related to the body, and therefore the introduction of a pattern which weakened the impression of the figure is less disturbing here than in the chiton. However, these bright-coloured cloaks were exceptional luxuries. The fashion of the better period shows its classic sense of beauty in forming chiton and cloak from materials of one colour, and merely introducing ornaments at the seams and edges, and these such as are of especial beauty and noble simplicity.
In the fourth century B.C. a gradual decline is again observable, and after the time of Alexander the Great rich designs, sometimes introducing figures, become commoner, even in purely Hellenic dress. Numerous examples on works of art show us the unaesthetic and absurd side of this fashion. The elaborate patterns give a disturbing appearance to the whole figure; the outline of the body is completely hidden by the dress; and when the drapery is disturbed or folded, in the case of borders or materials covered with figures, the result is sometimes very ridiculous.
As regards the material of the dresses, we mentioned above that when the change described by Herodotus was made, the linen chiton was introduced, but woollen materials were not on that account discarded; and as men ceased to wear the chiton long, it became commoner to make it of wool. The oldest sculpture as a rule represents two distinct materials when once we get beyond the tight-fitting costume of the earliest period. One of these shows fine and flat folds, while the other falls in large, deep folds. We cannot always maintain with certainty that these are two distinct materials, the former wool, the latter linen; sometimes it seems as though there were only two qualities of the same material, one being fine and thin, and the other coarse and thick. Yet the frequent use of linen is proved by the regular parallel and zigzag folds so common in the older art, which could only be produced in linen by artificial means.
As a rule, they wore, as we do, lighter stuffs in the summer and heavier ones in the winter; but though we very often find on archaic monuments transparent garments showing distinctly the outline of the body (compare Figs. [18], [24]), we are scarcely justified in assuming a very widespread use of really transparent garments. Even though such thin materials may have been worn at that time, especially by hetaerae, their extensive use in vase painting is probably due to the fact that the painters, not knowing how to represent the outline of the body and the movements of the limbs under the dress, and yet desiring not to hide them completely by the clothes, resorted to this expedient of letting the outline appear through the dress material. These thin stuffs were always common in the dress of the hetaerae, but respectable women used them only as under garments. We may, however, assume that this was also a matter of fashion, since materials from the looms of the island of Amorgos, which were especially noted for their fineness and transparency, were only fashionable for a short time in the period of the older Attic comedy. Later allusions to these stuffs are made chiefly by the learned, and do not refer to actual reality. Moreover, it is natural that the circumstances of the persons concerned played a part in the choice of coarser or finer materials. The stuffs introduced from foreign parts, such as cotton and muslin, could only be worn by the rich, as also silk, which, even in the Alexandrine period, was very rare and expensive. On the other hand, common men wore felt-like materials, and countrymen even tunics of skin or leather.
