Lectures On Painting Delivered To The Students Of The Royal Academy — Lecture 1 Ancient Costumes Part 1

ANCIENT COSTUMES.

I do not purpose in this lecture to enter much into detail.

Such a course would indeed be impossible, without having a large collection of costumes at hand to explain and illustrate my meaning as I go on.

I may attempt something of this kind in a future year, but my object to-night is to make a few general observations on the dress of the ancients.

I will begin with the ancient Jews, from Noah downward.

We have no pictorial record of the dress of the patriarchs; we have therefore no fixed data to guide us.

We may, however, safely assume that a straight-cut under-garment was commonly worn; that a long, ample drapery or cloak was thrown over the shoulders; and that the head was protected from the sun by a cloth, or possibly by some kind of skull-cap.

Turbans are essentially Mahometan, and the painters of the Flemish and Dutch schools were certainly wrong in representing Abraham with a turban.

The costume I have suggested as appropriate to the patriarchal age is identical with the dress of the modern Arabs, and there is no doubt that, if not identical, it really was very similar.

I think, however, that in painting Biblical subjects we ought to be careful not to carry the similitude too far.

I see no objection to clothing Ishmael or any of the tribes of the desert like modern Arabs; but the Jews, even in the time of Abraham, were a peculiar people, and we may very well suppose that they would modify their dress in such a manner as would distinguish them from the wandering and predatory tribes.

Besides, there is always a danger, in dressing Abraham or Jacob like an Arab chieftain, of importing into your picture that familiarity which breeds contempt.

It has often been done in modern times, but I cannot say I approve of this easy way of solving the difficulty.

I should put the cloak on differently to what the Arabs do.

I should avoid the camel’s-hair cord which encircles the head, and thus, whilst preserving the simplicity of that early period, my patriarchs would not be mistaken for modern Arabs.

The women of remote Jewish antiquity, the Sarahs, the Rebeccas, etc. , should be clothed in similar simple garments.

Whatever may be said in favor of dressing the men like Arabs, it would never do to introduce the female Arab fashions into Biblical pictures.

Their dress is peculiarly Mahometan.

The women of the patriarchal age wore long straight-cut robes, longer than those of the men, gathered round the waist by means of a cord or narrow sash.

They would have a cloth on their heads, falling a long way down the back; and the young women would probably have their arms bare.

[Illustration] The ancient Jews certainly wore sandals (or shoes, as they are translated in our version of the Bible).

These sandals were worn out-of-doors only, and consisted most likely of a rude leather sole, fastened to the foot and ankle by means of ligatures made of skin.

I will now pass on to the costumes of Assyria and ancient Egypt.

If we were to take literally the sculptured bas-reliefs of Nineveh, and the numerous wall-paintings of Egypt, we should come to the conclusion that the dress of those ancient peoples was of a very stiff, formal character.

Such, however, was probably not the case.

The stiffness and formality noticeable in these works is due rather to the want of skill in the sculptors than to the fashions of the period.

In the Nineveh sculptures we notice everywhere the hair and beards of the kings arranged in symmetrical curls, which would lead one to suppose that these monarchs must not only have had beards of a very peculiar nature, but must have spent a great deal of time under the hands of the barber.

On further examination, however, we find that the manes of the lions are treated in the same way, and hence we conclude that these regular, basaltic-looking curls were merely the artist’s conventional way of representing crisp or knotted hair.

The heavy fringes of the foldless dresses must be interpreted in the same way.

We learn from them that Assyrian kings, priests, and high officials _did_ wear fringes to their dresses, but it does not follow that these fringes were like those of a drop-curtain, or that the dresses were tight and uncomfortable.

The peculiar-shaped hat is probably very much like what really _was_ worn.

Something of the sort is still to be found in Persia and on the Indian frontiers.

In treating of ancient Egyptian costume we must, in the same way as with Assyrian, make a liberal allowance for the imperfections and mannerisms of the art of the period.

There is no doubt that the square shoulders and narrow hips of the Egyptian figures were not pure inventions of the artists.

The peculiarity has often been noticed in ancient mummies and skeletons.

The artists doubtless exaggerated and embellished what was possibly thought a beauty, just as we see more modern artists exaggerating the human form in another direction.

The heavy fringes and tassels of the Assyrians seem to have been unknown in Egypt.

The male costume is generally very simple and even scanty.

A

cloth, about two feet wide, wound single round the waist so as to allow the hips and thighs to be covered, with the end brought from behind between the legs, and tucked in to the waist, is in most cases the only covering.

Besides this garment, there is often a close-fitting kind of bodice with straps or braces over the shoulders.

Of shirts and tunics there are a few examples cut in the Greek fashion, but these probably belong to a much later period than the time of the Pharaohs.

We must not, however, argue that because we have no satisfactory representation of these under-garments that therefore they did not exist.

We read in Genesis, that Pharaoh arrayed Joseph in vestures of fine linen, and there is abundant evidence elsewhere that the rich Egyptians wore not only fine linen under-clothing, but rich mantles also.

The women in the ancient Egyptian paintings are represented in an impossibly tight dress descending to the ankles, but as no female could either walk or sit down in such a garment, we must suppose that the painters of the period did not know how to represent folds and therefore adopted this short and easy way of indicating clothing.

This is evidently a case where it would be absurd to follow literally the old authorities.

According to Herodotus, this robe was the only garment of the ancient Egyptian women, but there are indications on many of the bas-reliefs that some kind of thin tunic or under-garment was also worn.

Most of the women in the ancient paintings, however, have no clothing above the waist; but the neck and shoulders are adorned with a number of necklaces, and we notice over the shoulders the same kind of bands I have already mentioned in speaking of the men’s dress.

Of course, if you have a Cleopatra to paint, you may allow yourselves a great departure from the scantiness of the ancient wardrobe.

The Roman fashions were in Cleopatra’s time grafted on the Egyptian, and there are plenty of sculptures of the time of Adrian representing Egyptian priestesses, sacrifices, and processions, which give ample materials for dressing Cleopatra and her attendants, both male and female.

The most singular and striking feature in the costume of the ancient Egyptians is the head-gear.

This takes the most fantastic and extraordinary shapes.

Many of these queer head-coverings are royal crowns.

Thus, _a_ was the crown of Lower Egypt, and was of a red color;

_b_, of Upper Egypt, and white; _c_, the crown of the two countries united, which union took place about 3000 years B. C.

Some of these singular forms are doubtless heraldic imitations of flowers and feathers.

[Illustration] It is probable also that many of them are mere symbols and were never worn.

The rather hackneyed bird head-dress was peculiar to the queens of Egypt, and this, like the male crowns, was never worn except on state occasions.

Thus it would be incorrect to give Pharaoh’s daughter the bird head-dress.

If she had a right to it at all, she would not wear it when going out to bathe with her attendants.

She would probably have a kind of veil fastened round her head with an ornamental band, but she would no more think of putting on the insignia of royalty than our Queen would dream of wearing her crown when taking a drive in the Highlands.

The Egyptian men shaved their heads, and commonly wore either a skull-cap or the well-known cloth which we find everywhere from the gigantic sphinx to the most minute coin.

[Illustration] The best authorities give this head-dress an obtuse-angled triangle shape, but I never could make any thing of this hypothesis.

I am rather inclined to think that this most characteristic of Egyptian coiffures was an elongated piece of heavy cloth; the lower half of which was split into three divisions.

When the cloth was tied on the head, the two outer divisions were brought over the shoulders, the middle one being left to hang down the back.

A very becoming and very common head-dress of the women was a narrow band or fillet round the black hair.

This fillet was often embroidered with gold and bright colors, and a large water-lily, or an imitation of one, was fastened to it in front and projected over the forehead.

[Illustration] At the British Museum upstairs you will find modern representations of Egyptian warriors with their horses and chariots.

These are kings or great conquerors, and their clothing is exceptional.

If I had to paint Pharaoh pursuing the Israelites, I should not be guided entirely by these representations without further research; but they give an idea of what the Egyptian paraphernalia of war was like in the time of Moses.

The caution I would give you in painting Egyptian subjects is not to overdo the Egyptian element.

If in your researches you find an extraordinary head-dress like a chemical retort, or a patent cowl for a smoky chimney, do not be in a hurry to introduce it.

Be satisfied with the simpler and more generic forms of Egyptian head-gear.

The transition from Egyptian to Greek costume, like the transition from Egyptian to Greek art, was very gradual.

Without, however, stopping to speculate on the costume of the dubious Homeric period, we will proceed at once to the _terra firma_ of the historical age.

I shall always use the word “tunic” to designate the under-garment, or that which was worn next the skin.

If the tunic were never more seen than _our_ under-garments, its fashion and form would be of little importance: but as it often (especially in early times) was the _only_ garment worn, it is well to consider its construction.

The tunic for both men and women was made either of wool, linen, or some material resembling cotton.

It was called by the Greeks “chiton,” and appears to have been of two kinds, the Dorian and the Ionian.

The “Dorian” (the earliest form) was a short woollen shirt for the men, without sleeves, and for the women a long linen garment, also without sleeves.

These chitons were, however, not made like our shirts and chemises.

They consisted simply of two square pieces of stuff, one for the front and one for the back.

These pieces were linked together on the shoulders by the means of clasps, brooches, or fibulæ, and the different varieties of the Dorian chiton were mainly due to the degree in which they were sewn together at the sides.

The pieces never appear to have been united above the waist or girdle, but below this zone they were sometimes united on both sides down to the ground.

Sometimes one side was open as high as the middle of the thigh.

The Spartan girls, who were very active and athletic, adopted this fashion, as it gave their limbs freer play.

When they married, and gave up active games, they wore the chiton close.

The Amazons are always represented with this slit-up garment.

Sometimes (as in the Bacchantes) one side is entirely open.

Sometimes there is but one girdle, the usual one round the waist, which is said to have been put on under instead of over the garment it was intended to confine.

In this case the chiton must have been tucked into the girdle, and this may have been done occasionally.

But there are plenty of antiques where the girdle is plainly visible outside.

Sometimes there is a second girdle round the hips, the use of which was to shorten the dress by pulling it up through it, and then allowing it to flap over, so that this hip girdle is never seen.

Before finishing with the Dorian chiton, I ought to mention that in cold weather two (and sometimes three) chitons were worn, one over the other.

The rich people had inner chitons, made expressly for the purpose, but the poor simply wore their old and shabby ones next the skin, and their best of course outside.

The Ionic chiton was a long and very loose garment, made shirt fashion, and with sleeves that seldom came below the elbow.

These sleeves were often slit up, and fastened at intervals with small clasps or studs.

The Doric was the older garment of the two.

In later times the Ionic chiton worn by the men was of two kinds.

The chiton worn by the freemen was a garment with openings, and sometimes even sleeves, for both arms.

On the other hand, that peculiar to slaves had an opening only for the _left_ arm, leaving the right shoulder and breast bare.

[Illustration] The “diploidion” and “hemi-diploidion” are supposed by Müller and other authorities to have been a kind of double chiton, but I do not think this hypothesis to be correct.

I rather believe these names to have been given to a kind of short mantle, which was quite independent of the chiton.

Although, as I have already stated, the chiton was constantly worn alone, yet no person could be considered what we should call full dressed without the “pallium” or cloak.

In Sparta, although the young girls invariably wore the chiton alone, it would have been considered highly improper for any married woman to appear without some upper garment.

Indeed, unless the climate has changed very much within the last two thousand years, a cloak, (and a good thick one too) would be indispensable.

The only time I have ever landed at Athens snow lay thick on the ground, and a bitter cold wind swept down from Hymettus.

The pallium was square-cut, but not necessarily a square.

There were several ways of putting it on.

It was sometimes wound round the body and thrown over the left shoulder.

It was sometimes fastened on the right shoulder with a clasp, leaving the right arm free.

In short, there were as many ways of wearing it as we have of wearing a Scotch plaid.

The pallium was of all degrees of thickness and of every variety of color; scarlet, purple, saffron, olive, and pale green seem to have been the most fashionable colors.

For the poorer classes the pallium served as a covering by night as well as a garment by day.

It was to them a blanket; and there is no doubt that our word “pall” is derived from pallium.

The “peplon,” or shawl, was worn in Greece by the women only.

It was much ampler and made of thinner material than the pallium; we find, however, that the Orientals of both sexes wore something very similar, and when we read of David or any other personage of the Bible rending his garment, the shawl is most probably meant.

The modes of wearing the peplon were at least as numerous as the ways of adjusting the pallium.

In many of the ancient alto-reliefs women are represented with both arms and hands concealed by the peplon.

Indeed, there does not seem to have been much coquetry displayed in wearing the peplon.

It was emphatically one of those garments used for comfort and not for show.

Nevertheless, from the fineness of the material and the great area of the peplon, it was, perhaps, more picturesque and graceful than more formal pieces of finery.

The Greek “chlamys” is best translated by the word scarf.

Sometimes it seems exactly to correspond with what we understand by “scarf,” being a narrow strip of fine material, often embroidered and sometimes ornamented with a fringe.

The drapery which is often introduced to give relief to a nude statue, is generally some kind of chlamys.

The drapery of the Apollo Belvidere is a familiar example.

There is another garment which was sometimes worn by the Greek women over the long tunic.

This was a sleeveless short tunic much ornamented, but without a girdle.

We have many examples of this dress in the figures on the Greek vases.

I am told that modern milliners call this kind of thing a peplum, but this is quite a misnomer.

A peplum or peplon is, as we have seen, an ample shawl.

When the chlamys was worn as a cloak, it was either fastened in front below the neck or on the right shoulder; in both cases by means of a brooch.

As the chlamys when cut as a scarf would be wretchedly meagre and poor when worn as a cloak, it was modified and extended in shape, and, indeed, in this form (were it not for the thinness of the material) it would be hardly distinguishable from the pallium.

The female scarfs were almost always used _as_ scarfs and not as cloaks.

They were more ornamented than those of the men, and were often embroidered with gold.

The Coa vestis, or robe of Cos, was made of the finest silk, and was as transparent as our thinnest veils.

It was generally dyed either deep blue or purple, and I need hardly add, was never worn by any respectable female.

Greek women do not appear to have worn much covering for the head, except when they got old.

In youth the hair was so abundant and the art of arranging it was carried to such perfection, that to hide it would have been a great blunder.

To protect themselves from the sun’s rays in summer and from the storms in winter they had parasols and umbrellas, shaped exactly like the modern Japanese article.

These they either carried over their heads themselves, or had a female slave to carry them.

Nothing, to my mind, shows the exquisite taste of the Greeks more than the way the women arranged their hair.

The bands and jewels with which the hair was often adorned, rather assisted nature instead of distorting her.

If we compare these classical coiffures with the frightful wigs worn by the Roman ladies under the Cæsars, or with the plaited tresses of mediæval times, or again with the powder and pomatum structures of the last century, we are struck by the great superiority of the Greek fashion.

I am not giving a lecture on hair-dressing, and will say nothing about modern times, beyond emphatically condemning every fashion which distorts the shape of the head.

[Illustration] The Greek modes of arranging the hair, however elaborate, never leave us in doubt as to what is underneath.

We can always trace the shape of the head.

We never fancy that the knots, chignons, and tresses conceal a sugar-loaf or a small portmanteau.

Sometimes, as in the Medici Venus, the hair was gathered in a knot in the front part of the head, but generally the knot was placed behind, where it balanced the face, and broke the nearly straight line formed by the neck and the back of the head.

The bands and fillets with which the head was often encircled are very graceful adjuncts.

A crescent or diadem is often seen on the heads of goddesses, queens, and princesses; and it is not easy to conceive a more noble or royal ornament.

Nets made either of thread or silk were also worn to confine the hair, but these nets fitted close to the head and were not much used for the chignon, as with us in the days of beavers’ tails.

The women of Lesbos had a peculiar way of dressing their hair, which savors rather more of the later Roman than of the Greek fashions.

You will notice that none of these coiffures are suggestive of wigs.

If false hair _was_ worn, it was worn with judgment and discretion, and was never allowed to mar the symmetry of the head.

Greek men, like the women, seldom covered their heads, except when on a journey or at work in the sun.

The simplest and probably the oldest head-covering for the men was the conical skull-cap as seen on the head of Ulysses, but there are examples of soft broad-rimmed hats made either of felt, leather, or straw.

These would have been worn by field laborers, masons, etc. The Phrygian cap is worn at the present day by almost all Mediterranean fishermen.

This is the famous cap of liberty, and although in very bad repute since the French Revolution, it is a comfortable and inoffensive head-covering.

The first helmets were modifications of the Ulysses cap.

The material was changed from straw or felt to thick leather or brass.

A couple of feathers were sometimes added, and sometimes doubtless the leather or brass was ornamented with gold and precious stones.

After a time it was found that this primitive helmet did not protect the face; so a large piece was added in front.

This covered the face, but was soldered to the helmet and not movable.

It is this immovability of the vizor which throws the whole helmet back when the face is uncovered, and it is this backward position which gives the peculiar character to the Greek helmet.

We see it constantly in the statues of Minerva, and we have adopted it for our figure of Britannia.

[Illustration] In later times still further improvements were made.

A movable vizor was invented and flaps to protect the ears, and the coal-scuttle shape went out of fashion.

The defensive body-armor of the Greeks consisted of a close-fitting leather jerkin terminating at the hips.

Strips of leather loosely connected together sprang from the bottom of this jerkin, and reached nearly half-way down the thigh.

Both the jerkin and the strips of this petticoat were often strengthened by bands of metal.

Armor was also worn below the knees.

These greaves protected the shins, but did not encircle the whole leg.

There can be no doubt, from the descriptions of Homer and other ancient authors, that all this defensive armor was worn, but many of the elaborately ornamented and embossed breast-plates and greaves which are to be seen in every museum (though nominally Greek) are the works of a much later age.

Before finishing what I have to say about Greek costume, I ought to mention the coverings for the feet.

These were of manifold shapes and fashions; sometimes they consisted of a mere sole fastened to the foot with thongs; sometimes the toes were covered, but as there were no sides nor heel-piece the thongs were still necessary.

The most elegant form was that which we see in the statue of Diana.

In the very early days of Greece, it was considered effeminate to protect the foot, but at a later period every one except children, slaves, and ascetic philosophers wore some kind of sandal when they went out; and in the last two centuries before the Christian era, great luxury and elegance were displayed in the adornment of those sandals.

The costumes of some of the nations inhabiting Asia Minor differed greatly from those worn by the Greeks.

In several of the maritime provinces which had frequent intercourse, and indeed had been colonized by the Greeks, this difference was not very marked, although even here there was an Oriental or Assyrian element introduced; but the dresses of Phrygia were much more Assyrian than Greek.

In the first place, the Phrygians, like Oriental people generally, had a dislike to expose any part of the body, consequently they wore tight sleeves reaching down to the wrist.

Drawers or close-fitting hose covered their legs and feet, and over these they wore regular shoes made of soft leather.

To complete the costume, an armless tunic was worn, reaching to below the knees and girt by a leather belt.

The whole of this rather elaborate dress was often embroidered and ornamented with the richest colors.

It was altogether an effeminate and a gorgeous dress, such as Paris might have worn when he captivated Helen.