VESTIS
VESTIS The history of Greek and Roman dress has been only told
in part by the articles which describe various garments and ornaments under
their several names. In them the changes which new modes of life, new
channels of trade, and new manufactures brought about are only touched on
incidentally. The object of the present article is to supply the connecting
link, and to give a chronological sketch of the development of the costume
of the latest periods that concern us. Unfortunately it can only be a
sketch, for the ground is for the most part new, there being no
authoritative treatises on the subject. This is due to the fact that the
evidence is chiefly to be drawn from the monuments, and that they have not
yet been adequately studied. Until they are known with scientific
thoroughness, and until this knowledge ledge has been brought to bear on the
evidence from literature, the details of the history of Greek and Roman
dress cannot be filled in.
The earliest pre-historic remains in Greece and at Hissarlik go back to the
Stone age, when metals were unknown, and the potter's wheel had not yet come
into use. Yet, even among these, spindle-whorls and what maybe regarded as
loom-weights are found, showing that thread was manufactured then. Whether
this thread was of flax as well as wool has been debated, but the combined
evidence of philology and archaeology shows that it was not only known, but
woven into stuffs (cf. Schrader,
Sprachvergleichung und
Urgeschichte, p. 361 foll.; Studniczka,
Beiträge zur
G. d. altgr. Tracht, p. 45; Taylor,
The Origin of the
Aryans, pp. 165, 171;
FUSUS).
Besides these woven garments, the people of these early times must have
possessed plaited mats of reeds and rushes, much like those of the
fisher-folk of classical times (cf.
φορμός,
Theocr. 21.13; cf.
Paus. 10.29,
8), and of some anchorites of the Christian era.
That such mats were skilfully woven with all manner of patterns, a glance at
early pottery, with its plait ornamentation, is sufficient to show. These
woven and plaited stuffs were worn with fleeces and dressed skins [
PELLIS], or in some parts with
hats and coats of felt [
PILLEUS].
The civilisation of the so-called Mycenaean period brought with it many
changes in dress, but these have been sufficiently described in the articles
which treat of garments mentioned by Homer [PALLA;
PALLIUM; TUNICA]. One point, however, deserves special mention, the
connexion that existed between the people who enjoyed this civilisation and
the East. Both Egyptian and Assyrian works of art are found side by side
with those of Mycenae, and there can be no doubt that the commerce between
them, if not direct, was at any rate a regular one (cf. Furtwängler
und Loeschcke,
Mykenische Vasen). Such a trade must have
brought many products of the Eastern looms to Greece, as well as much costly
jewellery and furniture. The opening of historical times in the eighth and
seventh centuries shows the Oriental influence still strong, but chiefly
exercised through the colonists in Ionia. It was from the Lydians (cf.
Λυδοπαθεῖς τινές, Anacr.
fr. 155), and afterwards the Persians, that these
Ionians borrowed their luxurious ways. This new
ἁβροσύνη spread from Aeolia and Ionia to Magna Graecia,
Sicily no less than to Thessaly and Corinth, and flourished more especially
at the courts of the tyrants of this period. The result on dress is to be
traced in the number of foreign garments, whose names are to be found in the
Lyric poets. Thus
βάσσαρα (cf. Daremberg et
Saglio,
Dict. i. p. 681) and
κύπασσις (cf. Studniczka,
loc. cit. p.
21, note 62;
BASSARA) were both
borrowed from Lydia, and were names of long linen garments, while
σάραπις is Median. Linen also came from Egypt;
and the
φώσσων, ἡμιτύβιον, καλάσιρις,
and
σινδὼν are words derived from this
source (cf. Müller,
Handbuch, p. 412; Daremberg et
Saglio,
loc. cit. ii. p. 756; Studniczka,
loc. cit. pp. 47, 51). Besides these linen stuffs
were dyed woollen fabrics, especially those of Tyrian purple (
παναλουργέα φάρεα, Xenophan.
fr.;
ἁλουργίδες,
Ath. 12.512) and saffron, the latter owing part
at least of its vogue to its use in Dionysiac ritual.
The luxury of this time was, in Greece proper at any rate, chiefly confined
to the courts of tyrants; and when their
régime passed away, a reaction towards simplicity set
in, which Thucydides describes (cf. art.
PALLIUM). The chief reform effected was, somewhat
like the Jaeger movement of our days, a return to the use of wool in the
place of linen, and a reduction in the number of garments worn. However,
this must in most cases have been a counsel of perfection for the variety of
clothing shown by fifth-century art would scarcely lead one to suspect that
much greater simplicity actually prevailed. This period of what may be
called classical Greek dress ends with the foundation of Alexander's empire.
The new and close contact with the East that was then established not only
brought many new stuffs, such as cotton, but shifted the centre of fashion
away from Greece to the new capitals of the Hellenistic world. All manner of
fine muslins (
εὐήτριοι σινδόνες, Nearch.
Peripl. Mar. Er. 14, 6; cf Theophr.
H. P.
4.4, 8) and other cotton products (
κάρπασος: cf. Müller,
op. cit..
p. 436; Haverfield,
Journal of Philology, 13.299-302;
Daremberg et Saglio, s. v.
carbasus; Schrader,
Ling. hist. Forsch. pp. 210, 211), and even silks, became
known [
SERICUM].
In sketching the history of Roman dress, it would be useless to begin with
pre-historic antiquities, as we did in the case of Greek dress. Such an
inquiry would, it is true, give a glimpse of the mode of life led by the
common ancestors of the Umbrians, Romans, and other Italians in the Stone
age; but it would throw no special
[p. 2.945]light on Roman
civilisation. So great in fact is the gap between these primitive times and
the Rome of history that the traditions of the kings give the earliest
starting-point. These traditions all go to show that the influence of
Etruria on dress, if not on the manners and customs, was great. The form
this influence took was recognised in classical times by archaeologists,
like Florus, who tells us that the insignia of power were borrowed from
Etruria (1.5, 6:
Inde fasces, trabeae, curules, anuli,
phalerae, paludamenta, praetexta, inde quod aureo curru quattuor equis
triumphatur, togae pictae, tunicaeque palmatae, omnia denique decora et
insignia quibus imperii dignitas eminet).
The civilisation of the Etruscans was much older than that of the Romans;
their commerce was extensive, their manufacturing skill famous throughout
the world, and their wealth and luxury very great, to judge by the remains
that have been found in their graves. Even apart from the fact that the last
dynasty that reigned at Rome, that of the Tarquins, was Etruscan, their debt
to Etruria could not be anything else than great. Yet it would be wrong to
suppose that the Romans imported more than they needed for ceremonial
display. As in all primitive communities, the women of the family and their
maids were mostly busied in spinning and weaving wool.
The primitive stage, however, in which garments are worn, as they come direct
from the loom, had long since passed at Rome, even in the days of Numa. In
his time, if we can believe a tradition, the fullers [FULLONES] and dyers (
infectores) had
already attained the status of forming guilds (cf. Plut.
Numa,, 17). They were only concerned with the dressing of
cloth and preparing it for wear, so that there must have been considerable
variety in clothes, both as regards colour and finish, even in those early
times. Nor were these the only crafts concerned with dress, for the
goldsmiths (
fabri aurarii) also, one of the
original nine guilds, were in part at any rate employed in the manufacture
of jewellery. Besides, the felters (
coactiliarii),
also a very old craft, must have existed at this date, and provided coats
and blankets, not to speak of hats [
PILLEUS].
The garments produced by these native industries were for the most part of
wool, for the use of linen did not become common at Rome till late in the
history of the Republic. The form they took can, to a certain extent, be
recovered from tradition, and from their survival in certain ceremonial
uses. From these we learn that originally both men and women wore a cloak of
wool, the
TOGA and that below it
the men had a tightly-girt loin-cloth, the
SUBLIGACULUM The first change was the adoption by
both sexes of a woollen shirt or shift, the
TUNICA which from that time became the chief
under-garment. Early forms of these garments were used in historic times;
the
trabea [
TOGA p. 849
b] for instance, a
narrow toga, was the uniform of the
Equites publico
equo and the vestment of certain priests. In the same way the
tunica recta was worn by the bride on the
wedding-day [
MATRIMONIUM p.
142
b;
TELA p. 769
a]. She also wore the
RICINIUM which was retained by certain priesthoods. Besides the
toga, other forms of cloak seem to have been worn in sacred rites, such as
the
LAENA which was the vestment
of the flamens and augurs, and the palla, the dress of the
flaminica [FLAMEN;
SACERDOS]. Of the various coverings for the head, those of felt were
far the oldest at Rome; the
pilleus and
galerus of men, the
tutulus of women, being of this material [
PILLEUS].
Towards the end of the third century B.C. the conquest of Magna Graecia had
begun to take effect on the Romans. In no respect was the change more
evident than in that of dress, where it is shown by the large number of
words for new garments and new fabrics derived from the Greek, in the Latin
of that period. For instance, it was then that friezes (
amphimallum or
amphimallus), linen
(
carbasus), and muslin (
molochina) first became known. Embroidery (
vestis plumnatilis) and the use of trimmings (e.g.
patagium), flounces, and other adornments became
more common. It was now the fashion to wear more than one under-garment
(
tunica), and sleeves were no longer
unusual. Women especially fell victims to Greek fashion, giving the name
STOLA (
στολὴ) to their principal garment, and wearing the
STROPHIUM below it, and
wrapping the
parapechium (
παράπηχυ, Varro,
L. L. 5.30, 133) over it.
The men too, though they still retained the old dress for ceremonial
purposes (see article
TOGA),
adopted the Greek
ἱμάτιον, giving it the
name
PALLIUM the
ἐξωμὶς and
τριβὼν under the name of
ABOLLA and the
χλαμὺς with its
name unchanged. This adoption of Greek fashions went on ever increasing
until the period of the Empire, when, except for the most ceremonial
purposes, the old Roman dress had finally disappeared. Under the Empire,
however, the Greek, or rather Hellenistic fashions, changed rapidly. The
increase of the means of commiunication, and the constant influx of
provincials and foreigners to Rome, brought a great number of new fabrics,
such as fine linens, muslins (
sindon), soft
stuffs (
leporinum), and silks [
SERICUM]. The prevalence of
peace and the great growth of wealth created a constant demand for luxurious
garments of cloth of gold and rich embroidery. Of such a kind was the
paragauda (in Greek writers
παραγώδης), a sleeved tunic of Syrian origin,
which was of the finest wool, with a purple border and embroidered with silk
ornaments. It was worn by women, but for men was one of the insignia of
office (cf. Ed. Diocl. 16.15; Trebell. Poll.
Claud. 17;
Vopisc.
Aur. 46; Lyd.
de Mag. 1.17, 2.4, 13).
Even in ordinary use the sleeved
TUNICA or
STOLA had
been supplanted by the
DALMATICA which from the time of Commodus (Lampr.
Commod. 8, 8, “Dalmaticatus in publico
processit;” cf. Lampr.
Heliog. 26, 2) was worn by both
men and women. A companion tunica, but without sleeves, was called the
colobium [
DALMATICA]. Other new garments came from Gaul, such as the
CARACALLA and the
bardocucullus, or
birrus [BIRRUS; CUCULLUS]. Even
trousers [
BRACAE] (Ed. Diocl.
6.46) and breeches (
coxale, Ed. Diocl. 1.13) were
worn at this period.
The chief literary source of our knowledge of Greek dress is Pollux, who in
the fourth and seventh books of his
Onomasticon gives long
lists of garments, with short descriptions of their shape and make. Almost
equally important,
[p. 2.946]though only describing women's
garments, are the inventories of the temples of Artemis at Brauron
(
C. I. A. 2.715-765) and of Hera at Samos (Curtius,
Inschriften und Studien zur Geschichte von Samos, pp.
10-21), and the inventory from Thebes (
Bull. Corr. hell.
5.264). Of these the inscription from Brauron belongs to the beginning of
the second half of the fourth century B.C. The passages in Greek writers
which mention dress are too numerous and varied to call for comment in an
article like the present; it is necessary, however, to point out that great
caution must be used in interpreting such incidental descriptions or
allusions. In a drama, for instance, the garments worn are those of the
stage, which differed in every way from those of every-day life. The
characters wearing them appeared for the most part in the antique
magnificence of the Heroic age, not in the clothes of common folk. It is in
fact only in comedies that we can expect to find ordinary apparel worn and
spoken of, though even there the comic characters had extravagant and
impossible costumes. For the costume of the stage, see Albert
Müller,
Lehrbuch der griechischen
Bühnenalterthümer, pp. 226 foll.; Iwan
Müller's
Handbuch, vol. 5.3 (by Oehmichen), pp.
254-262.
The monumental evidence is that from which we must expect any further
extension of our knowledge, but it is of enormous bulk, and has not yet been
worked up as a whole. Böhlau, however, in his
de
re Vestiaria, and Studniczka in the
Beiträge
zur Gesch. d. altgr. Tracht, have shown with regard to the early
history of dress what results scientific archaeology applied to the subject
can produce. The chief difficulty in determining the value of monumental
evidence is that of estimating the effect of artistic convention. Thus, for
instance, there are a vast number of statues which are nude, because there
was an artistic tradition that heroes were so represented. So, too, there
are large classes of monuments in which dress is only given the figures as a
kind of ornament, to fill up the background, or to suggest movement. As yet,
however, no one has formulated these conventions, nor shown how their
influence can be eliminated. The chief obstacle is the rapid increase of our
knowledge, new discoveries bringing unsuspected variations and unknown
specimens to light before the old have been satisfactorily systematised and
described.
In current literature the only account of Greek dress besides that of
Studniczka, which is based on the idea of historical development, is to be
found in Iwan Müller's
Handbuch, in the section
devoted to
Privatalterthümer, pp. 395-441
a. A summary account on the same lines is given by
Von Heyden in his
Tracht der
Kulturvölker Europas (Leipzig, 1889). Besides, the
older works of Weiss (
Kostümkunde, 1872) and
Köhler (
Trachten der Völker, Dresden, 1872)
contain much that is useful. The two English works--Hope's
Costume of
the Ancients (1841; 2nd ed. 1875), and Moyr-Smith's
Ancient Greek Female Costume (1882)--contain many
illustrations, but are otherwise of little value. The same may be said of
Racinet's work in French Among the standard handbooks, the literature of the
subject is best given in Hermann's
Lehrbuch vol. iv.
Die griechischen Privatalterthümer (ed
Blümner, 1882), and Becker's
Charikles (ed.
Göll). Guhl and Koner's
Leben der Griechen und
Römer (1882; Eng. edition by Hueffer), and
Blümner's
Leben und Sitten der Griechen, especially
the latter, give good illustrations from the original monuments. The
articles in Baumeister's
Denkmäler (1884,
&c.), Daremberg et Saglio's
Dictionnaire des
Antiquités, and Rich's
Companion to the Greek
and Latin Dictionary are also useful in giving monumental
evidence. A useful account of how Greek dresses were made and worn, with
experiments on models by Conze, is given in Teirich's
Blätter für Kunstgewerbe, vol. 4.1875,
pp. 61, 74 (Vienna).
For Roman dress Varro, who describes and discusses the derivation of the
names of garments in the fifth book of his
de Lingua
Latina (preserved to us by Nonius), is the chief authority. On
the subject of dress under the Empire the fragments of the edict of
Diocletian, fixing the customs due on articles of dress, are of great
interest, as giving a full list of the garments then in use. Of the work of
the older scholars, the treatises collected in Graevius's
Thesaurus give all that is best. Needless to say, they are
antiquated, but in the treatises of Ferrarius and Rubenius much that is of
value may still be found. In modern literature the histories of Weiss,
Kohler, and Von Heyden, and the dictionaries mentioned above, may be
consulted. Of the handbooks, Marquardt's
Das Privatleben der
Römer (2nd edit. 1886) and Becker's
Gallus (ed. Göll) give the literature with great
fulness. Guhl and Koner and Iwan Müller's
Handbuch,
vol. 4.2 (by Voigt), are also useful.
A detailed account of the various articles of Greek and Roman dress, their
forms and their uses, will be found under their special names in this
Dictionary.
[
W.C.F.A]
