BYZANTINE CULTURE
A T A T Ü R K K Ü LT Ü R , D İ L V E T A R İ H Y Ü K S E K K U R U M U
T Ü R K T A R İ H K U R U M U Y A Y I N L A R I
VIII. Dizi — Sa. 12
BYZANTINE CULTURE
Papers from the Conference
‘Byzantine Days of Istanbul’
held on the occasion of
Istanbul being European Cultural Capital 2010
Istanbul, May 21–23 2010
Edited by Dean Sakel
ANKARA 2014
Byzantine Days of Istanbul (2010 : İstanbul)
Byzantine culture : papers from the conference ‘‘Byzantine days of Istanbul ’’
held on the occasion of Istanbul being European Cultural Capital 2010 , Istanbul ,
May 21- 23 2010. — edited by Dean Sakel. — Ankara : Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2014.
xxxvi, 567 s. : resim (renkli) ; 28 cm. — (AKDTYK Türk Tarih Kurumu
yayınları ; VIII. Dizi – Sayı 12 )
Bibliyografya ve indeks var.
ISBN 978 - 975 - 16 - 2938 - 8
1. Sanat, Bizans _ Kongreler. 2. Sanat ve edebiyat _ Bizans İmparatorluğu _
Kongreler. 3. Bizans İmparatorluğu _ Medeniyet _ Kongreler. 4. Bizans
İmparatorluğu _ Medeniyet _ İstanbul (Türkiye). I. E.a. II. Sakel, Dean editor.
III. Dizi.
949.520
Atatürk Kültür, Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu Yönetim Kurulu’nun 25.04.2013
tarih ve 673/8-6 sayılı kararıyla 1500 adet basılmıştır.
ISBN 978 - 975 - 16 -2938 - 8
ÜÇ S BASIM LTD. ŞTİ.
Ceyhun Atıf Kansu Cad. 137/9
Balgat/ANKARA
Tel: 0 312 448 13 67 - Faks: 0 312 340 76 15
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements
xı
Introduction
xııı
List of Illustrations
xxxı
THE NATURE OF THE BYZANTINE WORLD
Deining Byzantine Culture
1
Diether Roderich Reinsch (Freie Universität Berlin)
Byzantium as the New Rome
9
Michael Bibikov (Russian Academy of Sciences)
Byzantium as Repository of Graeco-Roman Culture
17
Elizabeth Jeffreys (Exeter College, Oxford)
Byzantium and the Judaic Tradition
29
Nicholas de Lange (University of Cambridge)
Byzance et l’Islam
37
Erich Trapp (Université de Bonn)
BYZANTINE LITERARY AND ART CULTURE BY PERIOD
The Literature of Sixth-Century Byzantium
Roger Scott (University of Melbourne)
45
VI
L’art à l’époque de Justinien
59
Jean-Michel Spieser (Université de Fribourg)
Dark-Age Literature
71
John Haldon (Princeton University)
Early Frescoed Icons: a Case of Cultural Divergence between East and West
83
Beat Brenk (University of Basel)
Prolégomènes à la littérature byzantine du IXe et du Xe siècle
93
Paolo Odorico (École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales)
L’art byzantin aux Xe–XIe siècles : témoin des traditions et des relations
109
culturelles au Proche-Orient
Marielle Martiniani-Reber (Musée d’art et d’histoire de Genève)
Komnenian Literature
121
Ingela Nilsson (Uppsala University)
Komnenian Art
133
Robin Cormack (University of Cambridge)
The Literature of Palaiologan Byzantium
143
Staffan Wahlgren (Norwegian University of Science and Technology)
La peinture paléologue de Constantinople – « au Royaume des Ombres »
149
Mauro della Valle (Université de Milan)
BYZANTIUM’S INPUT INTO OTHER CULTURAL TRADITIONS
L’inluence byzantine sur la Perse sassanide
Geoffrey Greatrex (Université d’Ottawa)
163
CONTENTS
Byzantium and the Arabs: Cultural Contributions and Intercultural Transmission
VII
175
Ahmad Shboul (University of Sydney)
Byzantine Cultural Inluence on the West
187
Dion Smythe (Queen’s University Belfast)
Byzantine Culture and the Crusader States
197
David Jacoby (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
Byzantium and the Slavs
207
Sergey Ivanov (National Research University Higher School of Economics)
Caucasia and Byzantine Culture
217
Stephen H. Rapp Jr. (Sam Houston State University)
Byzantinisch-Jüdische Interaktion im Östlichen Mittelmeerraum
235
Johannes Niehoff-Panagiotidis (Freie Universität Berlin)
Byzantine Culture in Late-Mediaeval Greek States
249
Alkmeni Stavridou-Zafraka (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki)
Au tournant du millénaire : la présence de Byzance dans la société
259
grecque d’aujourd’hui
Paris Gounaridis (Université de Thessalie)
Byzantine and Turkish Heritages
269
Rudi Paul Lindner (University of Michigan)
Architectural Transformations in Mediaeval Anatolia
279
(with Special Reference to Central Asia)
Ali Uzay Peker (Middle East Technical University)
Ottoman Architecture in the Light of Byzantine Examples
Jale Erzen (Middle East Technical University)
293
VIII
CONTENTS
ASPECTS OF BYZANTINE CULTURE
Le droit byzantin : essai d’introduction
301
Constantin G. Pitsakis (†) (Université Démocrite de Thrace)
La diplomatie byzantine
317
Jean-Claude Cheynet (Université Paris-Sorbonne)
Byzantine Court Culture
331
Michael Jeffreys (University of London)
Monastic Culture in the Middle Byzantine Empire
343
Margaret Mullett (Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection)
La science byzantine : entre Anciens et Modernes
357
Anne Tihon (Université catholique de Louvain)
Eulogie und Panegyrik in Byzanz
367
Michael Grünbart (Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster)
Byzantine Writing in the Vernacular
377
Ulrich Moennig (University of Hamburg)
Mainstream Texts, Viral Media and Hidden Agendas in the Tradition
387
of Patria Texts
John Burke (University of Melbourne)
Centres de copie de la « Ville » et des provinces à Byzance
399
Paul Canart (Bibliothèque apostolique vaticane)
La decoration des manuscrits à l’époque des Paléologues : le Tétraévangile
Vlorë 10 et la production du Monastère des Hodèges à Constantinople
Axinia Džurova (Université Saint-Clément d’Ohrid de Soia)
405
CONTENTS
Cuisine and Dining in Byzantium
IX
423
Johannes Koder (University of Vienna)
Attire and Personal Appearance in Byzantium
439
Bente Kiilerich (University of Bergen)
Mariage et rapports entre les sexes à Byzance : aspects généraux
453
Charis Messis (École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales)
Illustrations
465
Bibliographical Abbreviations
513
Manuscripts cited
529
Index
533
BENTE KIILERICH
ATTIRE AND PERSONAL APPEARANCE IN BYZANTIUM
The article discusses Byzantine attire by focusing on imperial and courtly dress from Early to
Late Byzantium, with main emphasis on Constantinopolitan styles. I use as evidence visual
material, mainly costumes represented in mosaics and illuminations, relating where possible
the representations to written and material sources. The aim is to give an idea of the key looks
from the sixth to the ifteenth century.
Introduction
In Byzantium dress was part of a clothing system which served to accentuate class differences:
people’s place in the social structure should be easily recognisable by their dress. In an ordered
society garments in different fabric, colour and design signalled the precise rank, status and
function of each person. Thus clothes served to conirm the Byzantine hierarchy and maintain
a social and ceremonial order.1
The Byzantine wardrobe contained certain key items, various types of tunics and cloaks,
which remained very similar for centuries. Yet certain mechanisms inevitably brought about
changes in fashions. Advances in the manufacture of fabrics, in dyeing techniques and in
looms and weaving made possible new and different designs. Commercial contact in the form
of trade with silk and whole garments, travel and diplomatic exchange introduced new fabrics
and inished dresses.2 Prominent lay people would emulate court fashions but generally had
to make do with cheaper versions; this would encourage variant designs.
In Byzantine attire each item of the outit was often conspicuously on display. The cuffs
of the inner tunic would be visible in order to show rich ornamented bands, and the open
chlamys would disclose the ine golden decoration of the outer tunic. In order to set each item
apart, the wearer often chose contrasting colours. Strong colours were more expensive and
accordingly gave higher prestige. Colours also carried symbolic meaning. The purple robe
1
2
P. Kalamara, Le système vestimentaire à Byzance du IVe jusque’à la in du XIe siècle (Paris 1995); Parani,
Reality of Images 1–100; J.L. Ball, Byzantine Dress. Representations of Secular Dress in Eighth- to Twelfthcentury Painting (New York 2005); ead., ‘Byzantine Clothing’ in J. Condra, ed., The Greenwood Encyclopedia
of Clothing through World History vol. 1 (Westport 2008) 117–52; M. Parani, ‘Fabrics and Clothing’ in OHBS
407–20. In general: Scott, Medieval Dress; R. Schwinges & R. Schorta, eds, Fashion and Clothing in Late
Medieval Europe (Basel 2010).
N. Oikonomides, ‘Silk Trade and Production in Byzantium from the Sixth to the Ninth Century: the Seals
of Kommerkiarioi’ DOP 40 (1986) 33–53 (rp. in id., Social and Economic Life text VIII); G.C. Maniatis,
‘Organization, Market Structure, and Modus Operandi of the Private Silk Industry in Tenth-Century
Byzantium’ DOP 53 (1999) 263–332 (rp. in id., Guilds, Price Formation and Market Structures in Byzantium,
VCSS 925 [Farnham 2009] text III).
440
BENTE KIILERICH
was especially costly because of the murex dye and it symbolised the supreme sovereignty
and power of the emperor. Since it is more dificult and more costly to make a patterned, bi- or
multicoloured dress than one in solid colour, patterns are status symbols. The descriptions of
imperial gifts recorded by Muslim sources specify the weight of the silk and the motifs woven
in two or more colours, in purple, red, white, green, and yellow.3 The richness of fabric, colour
and pattern forms an ‘intertextile’ aesthetic.
Methodological problems
Before taking a closer look at Byzantine images of clothes, it may be pertinent to outline some
problems associated with, respectively the archaeological, philological and visual evidence.
1. Textiles
Whole garments from Byzantium are rarely extant. Except for some ine, but late liturgical
vestments most ancient clothes survive merely as scraps.4 From the ifteenth century the
unfortunately highly fragmentary ‘princess’ garb at Mystras may be noted.5 Egypt is quite
rich in preserved garments in linen, wool and even silk; while the early clothes are in the
Graeco-Roman tradition, Byzantine inluence is seen in dresses from the seventh to the ninth
century.6 Other inds due to favourable climatic conditions come from the Caucasus, an area
with commercial contacts to Constantinople.7
For Byzantine imperial robes silk was the main fabric.8 The dating of silk fragments is
notoriously dificult, and suggested dates for individual pieces often vary by many centuries.9
Most silks are found in secondary contexts, some of the inest served for wrapping relics, and
their original context and function is uncertain. Moreover extant textiles do not necessarily
stem from garments; some were used for curtains, table cloths and other purposes. Even so
they give an idea of the possible range of motifs, noted also in written sources. In a list of gifts
from Emperor Romanos Lekapenos (919–44) to the caliph of Baghdad the imagery included
eagles and other birds, goats, trees, hunters, emperor on horseback — all preserved in extant
textiles.10
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
O. Grabar, ‘The Shared Culture of Objects’ in Court Culture 115–29 at 119–20.
See, e.g., E. Piltz, Trois sakkoi byzantins: Analyse iconographique, AUU Figura n.s. 17 (Stockholm 1976);
W. Woodin, ‘Liturgical Textiles’ in Byzantium: Faith and Power 295–310.
M. Martiniani-Reber, ed., Parure d’une princesse byzantine: tissues archéologiques de Sainte-Sophie de
Mistra (Geneva 2000).
D. King, ‘Roman and Byzantine Dress in Egypt’ Costume 30 (1996) 1–15.
A. Jeroussalimskaya, ‘Le cafetan aux simourghs du tombeau de Mochtchevaja Balka (Caucase Septentrional)’
StIr 7 (1978) 183–211; E.R. Knauer, ‘A Man’s Caftan and Leggings from the North Caucasus of the Eighth to
Tenth Century: A Genealogical Study’ MMJ 36 (2001) 125–54.
A. Muthesius, ‘Crossing Traditional Boundaries: Grub to Glamour in Byzantine Silk Weaving’ BMGS 15
(1991) 326–65; D. Jacoby, ‘Silk Production’ in OHBS 421–8 (with bibl.).
Id., ‘Silk Economics and Cross-Cultural Artistic Interaction: Byzantium, the Muslim World and the Christian
West’ DOP 58 (2004) 197–244 at 212f., refers to one fragment dated variously from the 7th to the 11th
century, and another for which the suggested dates even range from the 5th to the 14th.
Grabar, ‘Shared Culture’ 119–20. Other Arab texts conirm the wealth and variety of the material. For extant
textiles, e.g., Martiniani-Reber, Lyon.
ATTIRE AND PERSONAL APPEARANCE IN BYZANTIUM
441
Attribution of silks is equally problematic. Thus although Thebes in Greece was famous
for its silk, as far as I know, not a single shred has so far been found there.11 Silks from Egypt
and Syria were introduced into Constantinople; Sassanian silks were imported in the early
period and Islamic fabrics in the tenth century or earlier.12 Some motifs had a long pedigree,
Sassanian-style motifs continued long after the demise of the Sassanian Empire and they were
assimilated into Islamic and Byzantine art to the point where it is even dificult at times to
distinguish between Byzantine and Islamic work.13 When one takes into account the presence
of Chinese silk and from around the twelfth century Italian manufacture, establishing the
origin of silk textiles can be highly demanding.14
2. Colour terms
The silken fabrics were dyed in various colours. The most highly praised colour in Byzantium
and Antiquity was, of course, purple. Ancient Greek colour designations in the purple range
include halourgos, porphyreos, ostreios, thalassion, words that betray the marine origin of
‘sea-purple’.15 In Latin the most common word is purpura, while amethyst, violacea and
ianthina suggest variant hues (cf. Pliny, Naturalis Historia 35.135).16 Byzantine Greek retains
porphyreos and halourgos, expanding the vocabulary with special words for silk coloured
with genuine sea-purple, namely blatta, oxyblatta, hyakintha, as well as oxys and alethina.
Furthermore there are compound words of ‘textile’ value such as diblattion and triblattion.
In descriptions of clothes the purple terminology refers to the extremely expensive colour
obtained from the murex shell.17 But since ‘imperial purple’ comprised many different hues and
qualities, it is not always certain what in a given context a colour-word is meant to designate.
Many of the colour words also describe qualities and properties, referring to luminosity,
shine and saturation. The word oxys means sharp, keen, or severe; in connection with colours
the meaning could be a strong colour in the sense of dazzling, bright (silk).18 This is in keeping
with the fact that what the Byzantines valued in colour was primarily radiance and shine.
Porphyreos also means shining and is associated with light, the emperor from Constantine
onwards being presented as the ‘purple-shining sun’ (Theodoros Prodromos no. 12.7 [p. 261],
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
D. Jacoby, ‘Silk in Western Byzantium before the Fourth Crusade’ BZ 84/5 (1991/2) 452–500 at 460–8 (rp. in
id., Trade, Commodities and Shipping in the Medieval Mediterranean, VCSS 572 [Aldershot 1997] text VIII).
Id., ‘Silk Economics’ 220 and passim.
L.W. Mackie, ‘Toward an Understanding of Mamluk silks: National and International Considerations’ Muq 2
(1984) 127–46
D. Jacoby, ‘Silk Crosses the Mediterranean’ in G. Airaldi, ed., Le vie del Mediterraneo. Idee, uomini, oggetti
(secoli XI–XVI), Genova 19–20 aprile 1994, Università degli studi di Genova, Collana dell’Istituto di storia
del medioevo e della espansione europea 1 (Genova 1997) 55–79 at 70–9 (rp. in id., Byzantium, Latin Romania
and the Mediterranean text 10).
H. Blum, Purpur als Statussymbol in der griechischen Welt, Antiquitas Reihe 1/47 (Bonn 1998) 20–41.
M. Bradley, Colour and Meaning in Ancient Rome, Cambridge Classical Studies (Cambridge 2010) 189–211.
A. Lepschy, ‘Il colore della porpora’ in O. Longo, ed., La porpora: realtà e immaginario di un colore
simbolico: Atti del convegno di studio, Venezia 24 e 25 ottobre 1996, Istituto veneto di scienze, lettere ed
arti (Venice 1998) 53–66; A. Carile, ‘Produzione e usi della porpora nell’impero bizantino’ in ibid. 243–69;
I. Zidermann, ‘Purple Dyes made from Shellish in Antiquity’ Coloration Technology 16.1 (2005) 46–52; C.
Elliott, ‘Purple Pasts: Color Codiication in the Ancient World’ Law & Social Inquiry 33.1 (2008) 173–94.
B. Koutava-Delivoria, ‘Les oksea et les fonctionaires nommés ton okseon: les sceaux et les étoffes pourpres
de soie après le IXe siècle’ BZ 82 (1989) 177–90.
442
BENTE KIILERICH
about John II Komnenos).19
Blatta (congealed blood) is mentioned in Diocletian’s price edict in 301.20 Its meaning
shifts over the years so that, to complicate matters, blatta need not designate a purple hue.
Since the murex produced a wide range of colours, not only in the red-purple-violet range
but also green, blatta is basically a ‘Purpurkleidung’ in the sense of a silk garment dyed with
murex, the actual colour of which could have been any of a number of purple hues (or red,
green, or multicoloured).
3. Terminology of garments
The brightly coloured fabrics were turned into garments. The vocabulary for dress items
is confusing. Many garments are referred to in Constantine Porphyrogennetos’ Book of
Ceremonies (De cerimoniis aulae byzantinae), compiled c.950, in Pseudo-Kodinos’ Treatise
on the Dignities and Ofices, c.1360, and in various other texts.21 An alphabetic list of common
secular dress terms includes chlamys, chlanidion, chlanis, delmatikon, diadema, divetesion,
epilorikon, granatza, himation, kabbadion, kamesion, kolobion, lapatzas, loros, mandyas,
maphorion, roukhon, sagion, sakkos, skaramangion, sphiktourion, tamparion, thorakion,
tzatzakion.22 In addition there are words for various types of headdress and footwear.23
Regrettably the identiication of individual garments often presents obstacles. Moreover a
garment may have been known by different names at different times and places.24 Although
most terms presumably cover variations on the key items tunic and cloak, the many clothewords suggest that quite some variation must have existed in the Byzantine wardrobe.
The tunica came in a variety of forms. In addition to an inner tunic — in Late Antiquity
known as tunica manicata, most women wore an over-tunic, irst called a dalmatica, later
delmatikon. The emperor could wear a long silk over-tunic in purple, red or white called
a divetesion. Possibly the sakkos replaced the divetesion in Late Byzantium. Another tunic
term is skaramangion which could be purple or white. Although contested, it seems to be a
long splendid military tunic with gold décor (chrysa skaramangia), (De cerimoniis bk. 1, ch.
37 [189.10–11]). If we accept Kondakov’s military interpretation, it should be recognisable
19
20
21
22
23
24
L. James, Light and Colour in Byzantine Art, Clarendon Studies in the History of Art 15 (Oxford 1996); B.
Kiilerich, ‘Picturing Ideal Beauty: The Saints in the Rotunda at Thessaloniki’ AnTard 15 (2007) 321–36, esp.
334–6.
G. Steigerwald, ‘Die Purpursorten im Preisedikt Diokletians vom Jahre 301’ BF 15 (1990) 219–76; F. Morelli,
‘Tessuti e indumenti nel contesto economico tardoantico: i prezzi’ AnTard 12 (2004) 55–78.
De cerimoniis. G. Fauro, ‘Le veste nel ‘De ceremoniis aulae Byzantinae’ di Costantino VII Porirogenito’ in
A. Iacobini et E. Zanini, eds, Arte profana e arte sacra a Bisanzio, Milion 3 (Rome 1995) 485–523; PseudoKodinos; E. Piltz, Le costume oficial des dignitaries byzantins à l’époque paléologue, AUU Figura n.s. 26
(Uppsala 1994).
Discussions of terms: ead., ‘Middle Byzantine Court Costume’ in Court Culture 39–51, esp. 42–7; M. Hendy,
Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection vol.
IV: Alexius I to Michael VIII, DOC (Washington DC 1999) 150–64; Parani, Reconstructing 12–30; Ball,
Byzantine Dress 29–35, 39–45; Fauro, ‘Le veste’.
Headdress: E. Piltz, Kamelaukion et mitra: Insignes byzantins impériaux et ecclésiastiqes, AUU Figura n.s.
15 (Stockholm 1977).
Poukamision, sagias, and other terms have survived in post-Byzantine Greek: P. Zori, Embroideries and
Jewellery of Greek National Costume (Athens 1981) 36–8; I. Papantoniou, Ἓλληνικὲς Τοπικὲς Ἐνδυμασίες
(Nauplion 1996) 111–21, 159–68.
ATTIRE AND PERSONAL APPEARANCE IN BYZANTIUM
443
from front or side splits to facilitate riding.25 Since paragaudia originally refer to the coloured
bands decorating a dress, as a garment known to Constantine Porphyrogennetos it probably
designates a type of skaramangion with multicoloured bands.
The chief cloak of emperor and dignitaries was the chlamys, fastened at the right shoulder
at irst, later with alternative front closing. Chlanis and chlanidion may be shorter cloaks. The
sagion was worn over the skaramangion and therefore is likely to be a type of mantle. It could
be purple with gold (De cerimoniis bk. 1, ch. 37 [189.4–9]). For female mantles, a common
word is mandyas.26 Women also used the shawl-like palla or maphorion. In the Late Byzantine
period the kabbadion, a tight-itting coat-like dress with centre front closing became one of the
most distinctive items for men.27
Of ceremonial attire, the long jewel-studded gold scarf, the loros, is a distinguishing
feature of the Middle Byzantine court. Draped over the skaramangion or divetesion in a
complex arrangement, it was worn by the emperor (and empress) at special occasions.28 The
word loros (Lat. lorum) means a leather strap. It was also known as diadema.
A problematic term is thorakion, a word deriving from cuirass, breastplate. Although
it is dubious, modern authors have come to associate it with the shield-like shape formed
by the train of the empress’ loros.29 Some garment terms like granatza and lapatza betray
foreign origin.30 The tzitzakion is said to have been introduced into the court of Constantine V
(741–75) who married a Khazar princess. However it has proved dificult to identify any of the
latter in extant visual representations.
4. Visual sources
Many different costumes are depicted in images. When using represented clothes as evidence
for actual clothes the question of their accuracy inevitably arises, since visual shortcuts and
misunderstandings must be reckoned with. How can we know that the artist did not ‘invent’
the dresses, or at least added personal touches? For contemporary imperial and courtly attire
it is highly unlikely that the artists should have deviated from the actual dress codes of the
day. That represented clothes are in accordance with real ones is shown by a protovestiarios,
head of the imperial wardrobe, in a Michael VII Doukas illumination from the 1070s (on
25
26
27
28
29
30
N.P. Kondakov, ‘Les costumes orientaux à la cour byzantine’ Byz 1 (1924) 7–49.
Words for female garments: T. Dawson, ‘Propriety, Practicality and Pleasure: the Parameters of Women’s
Dress in Byzantium, A.D. 1000–1200’ in L. Garland, ed., Byzantine Women. Varieties of Experience AD
800–1200 (Aldershot 2006) 41–75.
In 899 Philotheos in the Kletorologion refers to it as the dress of the ethnikoi (foreigners): Listes de préséance
177.
H. Norris, Costume and Fashion: The Evolution of European Dress through the Earlier Ages (London &
Toronto 1924, New York 1999) 136–206 at 163: hanging down the front ‘… it passed over the left shoulder,
making a loop at the back, and returning over the right shoulder; thence across the chest, under the left arm
at waist level to the back, it passed through the loop. The remainder was brought round the right thigh, across
the front, and carried on the left forearm.’ The arrangement could be reversed.
G. de Jerphanion, ‘Le ‘thorakion’ caractéristique iconographique du onzième siècle’ in id., La voix des
monuments: Études d’archéologie. Nouvelle série, Institut Pontiical – Les Éditions d’art et d’histoire (Rome
& Paris 1938) 263–78; W.H.G. Rudt de Collenberg, ‘Le “thorakion”: Recherches iconographiques’ Mélanges
de l’École français à Rome, Moyen Âge 83 (1971) 263–361. According to Hendy (Catalogue 156–7), the
thorakion may be identical with the sagion.
G. Fauro, ‘L’enigma di due vesti bizantine tra Oriente e Occidente’ in Arte di Bisanzio 383–95.
444
BENTE KIILERICH
which see below). He wears a chlamys decorated with large medallions in white, red and
gold, each containing a prancing lion. A silk like this is preserved at Ravenna. Even the
relative size of the represented roundels is in keeping with the width of a roundel in the actual
fabric (c.43 cm).31 Other pictures similarly reproduce patterns documented by extant textiles.
Some of the designs worn by Theodora’s court ladies at San Vitale in Ravenna, c.540–7, are
preserved in textiles, e.g., four-petal roses, eight-pointed star and reticulate border. They are
therefore likely to represent actual sixth-century clothing styles. Empress Theodora’s wearing
of the chlamys follows imperial practice (cf. empresses on coins and ivories) — whether the
magi depicted on the hem was an integral feature or added to suit the particular iconographical
program of the Ravenna mosaics is a separate issue.32
A restricting factor in the visual material is that most secular images present emperors
and their retinue. Furthermore they are depicted in ceremonial garb, ‘grand gala’. Because
of the inherent conservatism of ceremonial attire, the imperial images may distort the view,
giving the impression that Byzantine dress was less open to change and novelty than may
actually have been the case. From these special attires it is obviously dificult to learn about
other types of dresses such as those of the middle and lower echelons of society.33 We are at
pains even to present examples of imperial ‘leisure’ wear. Still, it is worth recalling Psellos’
note that Empress Zoe preferred to wear thin garments (Psellos Chronographie 158.14, vol. II,
49: elaphra te stole); certainly, the heavy jewel-studded ceremonial attire she displays in her
mosaic portrait in Hagia Sophia was not her everyday wear (cf. ig. 38).
In sum, the sources for Byzantine costume make up a complex patchwork of written,
textile and visual fragments — a sneak ‘post-view’ of a rich and multifaceted ‘fashion scene’.
Representations of Byzantine dress
In the following I present some images of clothes from the sixth to the ifteenth centuries. The
selected examples are mainly familiar representations of the court. So far as possible I use
pictures showing both sexes in order to explore gender differences in manners of dressing.
Assuming that the court set the order of the day in fashion and dress, in a trickle-down effect
others would, as far as their economic situation and imperial legislation permitted, have tried
to follow suit by wearing less expensive versions, i.e. half-silks, pseudo-purple, etc. The study
of court fashions may therefore also serve as a point of departure for further ventures into the
clothing of people from other social strata.
1. Early Byzantine Attire
The two imperial panels in San Vitale, Ravenna, undoubtedly render Constantinopolitan
models and thus depict metropolitan fashions.34 The frontally displayed igures are presented
almost as if they were posing for a fashion shot. In the Justinian panel are emperor, clergy,
31
32
33
34
Silk reused for St Julian of Rimini, d. c.968, G. Cavallo, gen. ed., I bizantini in Italia (Milan 1982) no. 263,
ig. 347; Βυζάντιο ὡς Οἰκουμένη no. 68 (p. 158-61).
For the accuracy of the San Vitale panel, see B. Kiilerich, ‘Colour and Context. Reconstructing the Polychromy
of the Stucco Saints in the Tempietto Longobardo at Cividale’ Arte medievale 7/2 (2008) 9–24 at 11–12.
See Ball, Byzantine Dress 79–104, for non-elite dress; Dawson, ‘Women’s Dress’.
Deichmann, Ravenna vol. I, 226–56.
ATTIRE AND PERSONAL APPEARANCE IN BYZANTIUM
445
civil and military dignitaries and soldiers (ig. 96). Each person can be identiied by his
garments: The guards wear multi-coloured uniforms; the clergy is dressed in white, the bishop
standing out in his golden-yellow paenula. White chlamydes with purple tablia distinguish
the dignitaries. The focal point is Emperor Justinian: his short white tunic has golden décor
(paragaudia ?), his shoes are red with pearls and gems, his stockings are purple. The most
important imperial dress-ensign is the purple chlamys with golden embroidered tablion. The
costly purple hue in the emperor’s chlamys is presumably blatta, oxyblatta or hyakintha, the
hues restricted for imperial use (Codex Justinianus 6.40.1). A fashion detail: the position of
the tablion changes from the fourth to the sixth century, it is smaller and placed higher on
Justinian’s than on Theodosius’ chlamys.35 In time the tablion tends to decrease and change
its meaning from a mark of rank to an ornament.
In the Theodora panel the escorting women display a plethora of compound silks with allover patterning: all are dressed in a dalmatica (over-tunic) topped by a palla (large shawl also
known as maphorion). The dalmatics are purple, silver, green, red and white. For the palla,
silver, red on gold, red and yellow (ig. 97). It is signiicant that the closer to the empress, the
iner are the silks, only the mature woman next to Theodora dons a purple gown indicating
her higher social position. This is a fashion hierarchy. The empress is distinguished by a
purple chlamys; except for personiications the only females allowed to wear the chlamys
were empresses. This status symbol is a kind of ‘power suit’: when Empress Theodora is
dressed in what is basically a male garment of military origin, she illustrates and symbolically
partakes in the emperor’s power and might.
The most prestigious female garments are male items adapted for female use. Thus the
diagonal dalmatica, worn by the princess Anicia Juliana in the Vienna Dioskurides, c.512,
derives from the Late Antique consular toga contabulata, also known as toga picta, or trabea
triumphalis.36 In large scale the dress is illustrated in the stucco igures of female saints in
the Tempietto Longobardo at Cividale in north-east Italy, c.750/60 (ig. 98). Four of six female
saints give an idea of Byzantine court styles during iconoclasm, a period less well documented
in Constantinople. The layered style — tight-sleeved inner tunic, dalmatica and palla, with
rich decoration — is typical of prestige dressing in the Early Byzantine period. Two women
stand out in the diagonal dalmatica of male derivation suggesting their elevated rank.37
2. Middle Byzantine Attire
In the ninth century we ind again the empress borrowing from the emperor’s wardrobe. In a
miniature painting dated 879–83 Empress Eudokia is depicted lanked by her sons, Leo and
35
36
37
For Theodosian court fashions, see B. Kiilerich, ‘Representing an Emperor. Style and Meaning on the
Missorium of Theodosius I’ in M. Almagro Gorbea, ed., El disco de Teodosio, Real Academia de la Historia,
Estudios 5 (Madrid 2000) 273–80, esp. 275–6.
A. Alföldi, Die monarchischen Repräsentation im römischen Kaiserreiche (3rd ed. Darmstadt 1970); B.
Kiilerich, ‘The Image of Anicia Juliana in the Vienna Dioskurides: Flattery or Appropriation of Imperial
Imagery?’ SOsl 76 (2001) 169–90.
Ead., ‘Colour and context’; ead., ‘Antik mode i langobardisk regi’ Klassisk Forum (2009.1) 38–51; ead.,
‘The Rhetoric of Material in the Tempietto Longobardo at Cividale’ in V. Pace, ed., VIII secolo: un secolo
inquietudo (Cividale del Friuli 2010) 93–102.
446
BENTE KIILERICH
Alexander (Paris Gregory manuscript – Paris. gr. 510). 38 It is hardly possible to tell male from
female: all are dressed alike in a purple gown, probably the divetesion, and a crossed loros,
the long golden jewel-studded band. Incidentally the loros also derived ultimately from the
Roman trabea.
The loros is mentioned in Constantine Porphyrogennetos’ Book of Ceremonies
(De cerimoniis). On Easter Day the emperor wore some six different items: irst a purple
skaramangion with gold-lined sagion, then the thorakion and the tzitzakion. Later in the day
he took off the tzitzakion to put on the loros — and the crown, stemma. Finally, when joining
a procession, he exchanged the loros for the chlamys. (De cerimoniis bk. 1, ch. 37 [187.17–21]).
On the Sunday of Orthodoxy the emperor similarly dressed in a purple (oxy) skaramangion
and a gold-lined (chrysoperikleiston) sagion. But in Hagia Sophia he changed into a purple
(porphyron) divetesion and a chlamys (no colour speciied, presumably purple) to partake in
the procession (De cerimoniis bk. 1, ch. 38 [191.8–9]).39 Regrettably the ceremonial book is
without illustrations, but an inscribed ivory relief shows Constantine Porphyrogennetos in a
loros on top of a gem-encrusted slit over-tunic, perhaps a skaramangion, and a tight-sleeved
inner tunic (Moscow, Pushkin Museum).40
As the Book of Ceremonies makes clear, different oficial functions required different
attire. In the 1070s the emperor Michael VII Doukas (a few years later relabelled Nikephoros
Botaneiates) is depicted in different outits in four full-page miniatures accompanying the
Homilies of John Chrysostom (Paris. Coisl. 79).41 In a religious context Michael wears a blueviolet gold-interwoven tunic with a front slit, probably the skaramangion (fol. 2v) (ig. 99).
Enthroned in the palace receiving a monk (fol.2bisr) and with his courtiers (fol. 2r) Michael is
presented in a divetesion and a chlamys. The chlamys of patterned weave is shorter and with
a smaller tablion than Justinian’s at Ravenna. The shoes, however, look much like they did
ive hundred years earlier. Three of Michael’s dignitaries are in red gold-interwoven chlamys,
while the head of the wardrobe stands out in a cloak with lion roundel design. All dignitaries
display the new style of front-closing chlamys and they now wear small fur or silk hats.42
The inal picture (fol. 2bisv) shows the emperor in the crossed loros on top of a blue and gold
divetesion. His wife Maria of Alanya is assimilated to the emperor in colour and costume
but her loros is differently draped. A distinctive fashion detail is the wide sleeves, which
were in vogue already in the Early Byzantine period, e.g., in the eighth-century court styles
at Cividale. Because of the cost of the lavish fabric, wide sleeves were a status symbol. Due
to lack of evidence it is dificult to say whether they had been out of fashion for some time
c.1050.43
A characteristic feature of Middle Byzantine imperial attire is the studding with pearls
38
39
40
41
42
43
J. Lowden, Early Christian and Byzantine Art, Art and Ideas (London 1997, rev. ed. 1998) ig. 110.
For a detailed discussion of cloth and colour terms in Porphyrogennetos, see Fauro, ‘Le veste’.
Glory of Byzantium no. 140 (p. 203–4).
I. Spatharakis, The Portrait in Byzantine Illuminated Manuscripts, ByzNeer 6 (Leiden 1976) 107–18; C.L.
Dumitrescu, ‘Remarques en marge du Coisl. 79: les trois eunuques et le problème du donateur’ Byz 57 (1987)
32–45; Byzance: L’art byzantin no. 271 (p. 360–1); Glory of Byzantium p. 82, p. 182, no. 143 (p. 207–9).
Some of these silks reached southern Italy, as the emperor was pressured to send six hundred silks to Robert
Guiscard: H. Bibicou, ‘Une page d’histoire diplomatique de Byzance au XIe siècle: Michel VII Doukas,
Robert Guiscard et la pension des dignitaires’ Byz 29/30 (1959/60) 43–75.
Wide sleeves became highly fashionable in the mediaeval West; Scott, Medieval Dress e.g. igs 98, 101.
ATTIRE AND PERSONAL APPEARANCE IN BYZANTIUM
447
and precious stones. Such display of wealth and splendour would dazzle the spectators and
help sustain the belief in the sovereign’s super-worldly power and might. Mockingly the attire
of Romanos IV (1068–71) is said to be decorated with 30.000 pearls, being so heavy that he
can barely stand or sit.44 The grossly exaggerated quantity of pearls, the sheer cost and weight
of the garment is meant to impress and to intensify public awe.
Mosaics are well-suited to render this jewelled aesthetic, as shown in the two imperial
panels in the south gallery of Hagia Sophia (igs 38–9).45 In the irst panel Zoe is depicted with
her husband (1028–42); in the next are John II Komnenos, the ‘purple-shining sun’, and Irene
with their son Alexios (c.1122–34) (not visible in illustration). Zoe wears a jewelled collar,
loros and delmatikon with orbiculi. The latter ensign goes back to the Roman period.46 Irene’s
delmatikon has fewer jewels, mainly small pearls and instead of orbiculi her sleeves have
broad upper armbands. Whereas the weave of Zoe’s delmatikon is gold and bluish-purple,
that of Irene is crimson and gold. The tendency to move from purple towards red for female
court attire is especially strong in Late Byzantium (on which see below). In contrast to Zoe’s
bi-coloured geometrical style, a rinceau decorates the middle part and the wide laring sleeves
of Irene’s garment. The larger loral elements of the weave may point to advances in weaving
technique, or it may be a more classicising fashion style.
In Late Antiquity and Early Byzantium, dalmatics were usually belted below the breast.47
Now the belt rests on the hip, as the men habitually wore it. Irene’s belt is green, that of Zoe
is not preserved, but one is shown in a manuscript illumination where she is depicted with her
sister and her husband Constantine Monomachos (Sin. gr. 364 fol. 3r).48
The illumination is particularly interesting for its colours: the emperor wears purple, Zoe
bright red and Theodora dark blue, a colour coding denoting respective rank. It is tempting to
apply the three cloth-colour words named by Pollux in the Onomastikon: halourgis, porphyris,
phoinikis (bk. 7, ch. 55 [Pollucis Onomastikon, ed. E. Bethe, Lexicographi Graeci 9, vol. II
(Leipzig 1931) 167]).49 Except for colour and details there are no gender distinctions.
In the mosaic the porphyrogennete Zoe is to some extent assimilated to the emperor
in costume, while Irene displays a more gendered dress. Interestingly Zoe’s face also fuses
male and female traits.50 The Macedonian and the Komnenian male attire show only minor
differences. The sleeves are wider and the jewels appear more luxurious in Constantine’s
dress.51 John and Alexios’ sleeves are tighter, with loral pattern. Also the old-fashioned
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
According to the Arab visitor Ibrahim ben Ali al-Kafartabi; Grabar, Shared Culture 124; Scott, Medieval
Dress 33. Long strings of small white pearls are preserved in Istanbul Archaeological Museum.
T. Whittemore, The Mosaics of Hagia Sophia at Istanbul: Third Preliminary Report: The Imperial Portraits
of the South Gallery (Oxford 1942).
See, e.g., M.P. Speidel, ‘Late-Roman Military Decorations II: Gold-embroidered Capes and Tunics’ AnTard 5
(1997) 231–7.
A.T. Croom, Roman Clothing and Fashion (Charleston 2000); B. Kiilerich, ‘The Mosaic of the Female
Musicians from Mariamin, Syria’ ActaNorv 22 (2010) 87–109, for fashionable 4th-century dresses.
Spatharakis, Portrait 99–102; Galavaris, Ζωγραφικὴ Βυζαντινῶν Χειρογράφων ig. 56.
For Pollux, see Blum, Purpur als Statussymbol 30.
B. Kiilerich, ‘Likeness and Icon: The Imperial Couples in Hagia Sophia’ ActaNorv 18 n.s. 4 (2005) 175–203
at 184–6.
Actually rather one of his predecessors’, as Constantine’s name and portrait head were inserted into the body
of Zoe’s irst or second husband; ibid. 187–93.
448
BENTE KIILERICH
orbiculi have given way to ornamental armbands. But we hardly sense that a century separates
the two emperors.
3. Late Byzantine Attire
Unfortunately no thirteenth-century equivalent to the Zoe and Irene panels exists. At the
Latin conquest in 1204 the court abandoned Constantinople, as did many others with them.
The silk industry declined and the production of murex purple gradually ceased.52 After the
Byzantine recovery of the city in 1261 silk manufacture never topped again. Whereas in the
twelfth century westerners proudly dressed in Byzantine fashions, in the thirteenth century
leading trends were more likely to come from the West.53 However, the picture is complex
inasmuch as western fashions had for long been heavily inluenced from the East.54
A favoured Late Byzantine dress is the kabbadion, the coat-like garment with centrefront closing and itted sleeves. A gold-lined blue kabbadion with addorsed lions in roundels
is worn by the grand duke Alexios Apokaukos in 1341/5, as depicted in Paris. gr. 2144 (ig.
100).55 This is close to a much earlier item, a blue-golden fur-lined silk kabbadion with
senmurv pattern of ninth-century date from Moshchevaja Balka in the Caucasus.56 The tightitting shape, often with a fur lining, made it warmer than the open cloaks. Moreover fur
was not only warm but in combination with brocaded silk an obvious display of riches. This
itted dress also displayed important sartorial elements, and sometimes metal buttons, another
status symbol.57
For the late period an important source is Pseudo-Kodinos’ Book of Ofices, c.1360. In
chapter 2 ‘On the uniform and dignity of the ofices’ the author recounts the garments worn by
the numerous dignitaries and their various colours according to rank. But while he succinctly
describes the garments, especially headdresses (skaranika) which had become still more
opulent, the terse prose and mechanical formulae make it dificult to gain more than a general
impression of the dresses.58
The Lincoln College Typikon from the Theotokos Monastery in Constantinople, c.1330/40,
contains a collection of double portraits, displaying high-oficial couples: a female donor,
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Jacoby, ‘Silk Economics’ 210; id., ‘Silk Production’ 424–6.
An illumination from 1185–8 shows Henry the Lion, Duke of Saxony, and his relatives dressed in Byzantine
silks, which he had received from Maria of Antioch when he visited Constantinople; Scott, Medieval Dress
51 ig. 26, Gospel of Henry the Lion, Helmershausen Abbey, Wolfenbüttel.
A case in point is the Normano-Sicilian court: Roger II emulating the Byzantine emperor dressed in loros;
H. Torp, ‘The Twin Virtues of Roger II of Sicily’ in E. Piltz & P. Åström, eds, Kairos: Studies in Art History
and Literature in Honour of Professor G. Åkerström-Hougen (Jonsered 1998) 146–67. He also brought
silkworkers from Thebes and Corinth to his court; Jacoby, ‘Silk in western Byzantium’ 462–4.
Spatharakis, Portrait 148–51; Byzance: L’art byzantin no. 351 (p. 455–8).
Jeroussalimskaya, ‘Le cafetan’; Knauer, ‘A Man’s Caftan’.
For buttons found at Mystras: The City of Mystras. Byzantine Hours. Works and Days in Byzantium (Athens
2001) igs 8–9. Buttons became widespread from the 14th century, but they also existed in Antiquity, and were
known, e.g., to Scandinavians and Longobards.
Pseudo-Kodinos, for text, translation and commentary; E. Piltz, Le costume oficial des dignitaries byzantins
à l’époque paléologue, AUU Figura n.s. 26 (Uppsala 1994), who based on Verpeaux combines textual and
visual sources.
ATTIRE AND PERSONAL APPEARANCE IN BYZANTIUM
449
her husband, her parents, children and grand-children (Oxon. Linc. Coll. gr. 35).59 The men
wear belted kabbadia gathered at the waist. Instead of the earlier predilection for displaying a
layered style with several garments on top of each other, the outit is now a set or suit.
The illuminations show the kabbadia in gold and red, gold and blue-violet and gold
and green, colours in keeping with the information provided by Pseudo-Kodinos. For
verikokkochroos, apricot-coloured, Pseudo-Kodinos explains that the colour is between red
and white (ch. 2, B19 [155]). This is the colour of Michael Laskaris’ dress (fol. 4).60 The female
costume is in opulent silk brocade with a large, bold pattern in red and gold, illustrating
the word chrysokokkinon used by Pseudo-Kodinos (ch. 2, B15 [147–8]). It appears to be a
‘two-piece’, a long dress (roukhon?) with a kind of ‘smock’ on top.61 There is inevitably a
certain stereotype with near identical formulae with slight variation in dress pattern. Since
four generations certainly did not wear the same costumes at the same time, we must take
them as generic dress images.
Of particular interest in the Typikon is the picture of the sebastokrator Constantine
Komnenos Palaiologos (fol. 1v). He is the only man to wear the chlamys, here dark-blue
with golden double-eagle roundels (ig. 101). By then the chlamys was presumably known as
tamparion, a word related to the Italian tabarro, a mantle. Although the kabbadion (a word
which by the way seems to have survived in a different form in the Italian caban, and the
Swedish kavaj, a short jacket) was the more usual outerwear, the chlamys still served as the
ceremonial cloak of the Late Byzantine sovereign.62
Just as the chlamys continued in use, Late Byzantine emperors still wore the loros/
diadema for ceremonial occasions, only the band was generally less wide and accordingly
with fewer pearls and precious stones — a possible sign of a somewhat strained economy. A
narrow golden loros is worn over a violet sakkos (?) by Emperor Alexios III Komnenos of
Trebizond in a chrysobull from 1374 preserved at Mt. Athos (Dionysiou Monastery Archives).
His wife Theodora is dressed in a bright red belted delmatikon (?) interwoven with doubleheaded eagles in gold.63
Much the same colours are rendered in an illumination of Manuel II Palaiologos’ family,
painted 1403–5, shortly after their return from Paris exile to Constantinople (Louvre MR 416).64
The emperor and his eldest son are in dark violet loros-costume, the empress in a wide-sleeved
red and gold delmatikon with sumptuous gold hem and central panel, and a mantle with golden
tablia (ig. 102). As in the Typikon, the clothes are a set, making it dificult to distinguish the
59
60
61
62
63
64
Spatharakis, Portrait 190–204; A. Cutler & P. Magdalino, ‘Some Precisions on the Lincoln College Typikon’
CahArch 27 (1978) 179–98; Piltz, Costume oficial igs 56, 58–9, 61–2; Galavaris, Ζωγραφικἠ Χειρογράφων
226.
City of Mystras ig. 169.
Cutler, ‘Precision’ 188: ‘loose-itting tunic … over a skirt’; Parani, Reality of Images 74, appears like ‘a long
dress or skirt …with a “blouse’’, but could be, p. 75, a single gown.
M.G. Parani, ‘Cultured Identity and Dress: the Case of Late Byzantine Court Costume’ JÖB 57 (2007) 95–134
at 105, although accepting the tamparion as a descendant of the chlamys, states that in Late Byzantium the
chlamys ‘disappears almost completely’. See, however, ead., Reality of Images 63–4, with reference to visual
examples of LB mantles.
B. Atsalos, Ch. Bakirtzis, A.A. Karakatsanis, Treasures of Mount Athos (Thessalonica 1997) 504, 518.
Spatharakis, Portrait 139–44; Byzance: L’art byzantin no. 356 (p. 463–4).
450
BENTE KIILERICH
separate elements.65 The two younger princes wear red chlamydes interwoven with golden
double-headed eagles on top of gold and red divetesia. Since true purple had become dificult
to obtain, and the imperial house could not possibly wear cheaper substitute pseudo-purples,
this may have instigated the shift in colours witnessed here and in other Palaiologan images.
The lavish use of gold on the empress’ dress, perhaps not quite in line with reality, may have
served to morally boost the hope for a new ‘golden age’ in Byzantium.
4. Conclusions
The main difference between early and Late Byzantium is the gradual change from draped to
itted garments and the combination of individual items into sets. The imperial chlamys went
from loor-length monochrome in the Early Byzantine period to calf-length and multicoloured
in the middle period, to become longer again in the Palaiologan era. The fastening changed
from shoulder to centre-front and back again, inally to be negotiable. For court dignitaries,
the visual material shows much variety of colours and patterns, but less variety in cut and
shape.
Gender and costume
Even though tunics and other garments were worn by both sexes, Byzantine dress was not
unisex. Still, it is noticeable, if hardly surprising, that the most prestigious ceremonial dresses
for women were the ones that derive from male garments. In the Early Byzantine period
Empress Theodora is garbed in the purple chlamys, the ensign of the emperor. Similarly,
another female garment, the diagonal dalmatica, is a variant of the toga contabulata worn by
the triumphant consul in Late Antiquity.
In the Middle Byzantine period an empress could also at special occasions wear the loros.
Thus the depiction of Empress Eudokia lanked by her sons shows no gender distinction.
Likewise an illumination of Zoe, Constantine and Theodora presents the sovereigns in
identical garb only in different colour to disclose their relative rank. In other depictions gender
differences are more pronounced, thus Maria of Alanya and Irene’s wide sleeves give them a
more feminine appearance.
In the late period colours and cuts distinguish imperial gender more clearly: Emperor
Manuel II in deep, dark violet contrasts with the empress dressed in bright red and gold.
Signiicantly, several elements of Palaiologan female dress still derive from the male wardrobe:
Thus the tablia on the upper-arms are in origin military distinctions, precisely like the orbiculi
on the shoulders of early and Middle Byzantine dalmaticae.
Key looks of the centuries
The Early Byzantine court style in the Antique tradition is basically a fabric style. The
aesthetic and communicative value of the vestments lies in the quality of the luxurious fabric:
65
Partly due to laking, parts of her outit are dificult to make out. If one compares with Tsar John Alexander’s
family in a manuscript from 1355, Lond. Br. Libr. Add. 39627 (Βυζάντιο ὡς Οἰκουμένη 256f. no. 139), it seems
to consist of delmatikon with gold central band and hem, and mantle with square gold tablia.
ATTIRE AND PERSONAL APPEARANCE IN BYZANTIUM
451
silk dyed with costly murex purple; further in a layered display of various colours, patterns
and ornamented bands. The main point is the surface impact. Cutting is simple, tunics and
chlamydes being more or less one-size and body-covering.
In the Middle Byzantine period a tendency is seen to enhance the gowns with still more
applied pearls and precious stones. Golden hems and borders give way to all-over jewelled
décor and make the clothes statements of riches and power. While the attire in the Early
Byzantine period was draped loosely, it now often seems to constrain the wearer.
The most conspicuous development in Late Byzantium is the increasing use of cutting
and tailoring, the breakthrough of a itted style also prevalent in the West. The kabbadion is
a close-itting outer garment with more sartorial elements and often with multiple buttons.
Dresses are constructed and they often make up a set.
The key features can be summarised as follows:
Early Byzantium: ‘Textile style’:
• emphasis on colour and fabric
• layered style with garments in contrasting colours and patterns
• small, regular patterns
Middle Byzantium: ‘Jeweled style’:
• emphasis on pearl-, gem- and stone-studding
• larger range in dresses and ways of dressing
• small to medium-sized patterns.
Late Byzantium: ‘Integrated style’:
• emphasis on cut, shape and tailoring
• individual items make up a set in same colour and fabric.
• large-scale patterns.
The various representations of the court, the mediaeval equivalent to present-day
oficial photographs of rulers, illustrate that ‘clothes make the man — and woman’. Courtly
attire, splendid vestments, beautiful fabrics, dazzling robes, all helped to sustain the idea
of the emperor and his court as of over-worldly stature. Whether seen from an historical or
aesthetical viewpoint, dress is an important social factor and the study of Byzantine fashions
may illuminate many aspects of Byzantine culture.
ILLUSTRATIONS
479
Fig. 37. Détail d’un coffret, ivoire sculpté et pourpré, traces d’or, éléments de fermeture en argent, Trésor de la
cathédrale de Troyes [d’après Βυζάντιο ὡς Οἰκουμένη 120].
Fig. 38. Mosaic panel with Christ, Constantine IX Monomachos, and Zoe (1028 –34
and 1042–55), Hagia Sophia (Ayasofya Musem), Istanbul, east wall, south
gallery [Photo: A.-B. Yalçın 2013].
480
ILLUSTRATIONS
Fig. 39. Mosaic panel with Virgin and Child, John II Komnenos, and Eirene (1118 –34), Hagia Sophia
(Ayasofya Museum), Istanbul, east wall, south gallery [Photo: A.-B. Yalcın 2013].
Fig. 40. Reliquary plaque, silver gilt, 12th century 42.6
x 31 cm, Paris, Musée du Louvre MR 348 [after
Byzance: L’art byzantin no. 248 (p. 333-5)].
506
ILLUSTRATIONS
Fig. 94. L’évangéliste Luc, le Tétraévangile
Vlorë 10 f. 150v [Photo : A. Džurova 2012].
Fig. 95. Frontispice surmontant la liste des chapitres
de l’Évangile de Matthieu, le Tétraévangile
Vlorë 10 f. 12 [Photo : A. Džurova 2012].
Fig. 96. Justinian and retinue (c.540 –7), Basilica of San Vitale, Ravenna [Photo: A.-B. Yalçın 2014].
ILLUSTRATIONS
Fig. 97. Theodora and retinue (c.540 –7), Basilica of San Vitale, Ravenna [Photo: A.-B.
Yalçın 2014].
Fig.
98. Female saint c.750/60,
Tempietto Longobardo, Cividale
del Friuli [Drawing: B. Kiilerich
2008].
507
508
ILLUSTRATIONS
Fig. 99. Michael Doukas and courtiers (1070s), Paris. Coisl. 79 [from Βυζάντιο ὡς Οἰκουμένη 130
ig. 26].
ILLUSTRATIONS
Fig. 100. Grand Duke Alexios Apokaukos (c.1341–5), Paris. gr. 2144 [after Scott,
Medieval Dress ig. 58].
509
510
ILLUSTRATIONS
Fig. 101. Constantine Komnenos Palaiologos and Irene (left), John Synadenos and Theodora (right) (c.1330/40),
Oxon. Linc. Coll. gr. 35 [after Byzantium: Faith and Power I ig. 9.11].
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS
511
Fig. 102. Manuel II Palaiologos and family 1403 –5, Paris. Musée du Louvre MR 416 [after Byzance: L’art
byzantin no. 356 (p. 463)].