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.
[Illustration: _Photo. by Mansell & Co._
FIG. 32.—Archaic Statue—Athens, Acropolis Museum
_Face page_ 78.]
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.
[Illustration: FIG. 33.]
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.
[Illustration: FIG. 34.—Drapery in the Style of the Archaic Statues
in the Acropolis Museum, Athens.
_Face page_ 91.]
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.