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 UT Ü R K T A R İ H K U R U M U Y A Y I N L A R I

V I I I . D i z i — S a . 1 2

BYZANTINE CULTURE

ANKARA 2014

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

ISBN 978 - 975 - 16 -2938 - 8

Atatürk Kültür, Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu Yönetim Kurulu’nun 25.04.2013 tarih ve 673/8-6 sayılı kararıyla 1500 adet basılmıştır.

ÜÇ S BASIM LTD. ŞTİ.Ceyhun Atıf Kansu Cad. 137/9Balgat/ANKARATel: 0 312 448 13 67 - Faks: 0 312 340 76 15

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 yaynlar ; VIII. Dizi – Say 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

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements xı

Introduction xııı

List of Illustrations xxxı

THE NATURE OF THE BYZANTINE WORLD

Defining Byzantine Culture 1Diether Roderich Reinsch (Freie Universität Berlin)

Byzantium as the New Rome 9Michael Bibikov (Russian Academy of Sciences)

Byzantium as Repository of Graeco-Roman Culture 17Elizabeth Jeffreys (Exeter College, Oxford)

Byzantium and the Judaic Tradition 29Nicholas de Lange (University of Cambridge)

Byzance et l’Islam 37Erich Trapp (Université de Bonn)

BYZANTINE LITERARY AND ART CULTURE BY PERIOD

The Literature of Sixth-Century Byzantium 45Roger Scott (University of Melbourne)

VI

L’art à l’époque de Justinien 59Jean-Michel Spieser (Université de Fribourg)

Dark-Age Literature 71John Haldon (Princeton University)

Early Frescoed Icons: a Case of Cultural Divergence between East and West 83Beat Brenk (University of Basel)

Prolégomènes à la littérature byzantine du IXe et du Xe siècle 93Paolo Odorico (École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales)

L’art byzantin aux Xe–XIe siècles : témoin des traditions et des relations 109culturelles au Proche-OrientMarielle Martiniani-Reber (Musée d’art et d’histoire de Genève)

Komnenian Literature 121Ingela Nilsson (Uppsala University)

Komnenian Art 133Robin Cormack (University of Cambridge)

The Literature of Palaiologan Byzantium 143Staffan Wahlgren (Norwegian University of Science and Technology)

La peinture paléologue de Constantinople – « au Royaume des Ombres » 149Mauro della Valle (Université de Milan)

BYZANTIUM’S INPUT INTO OTHER CULTURAL TRADITIONS

L’influence byzantine sur la Perse sassanide 163Geoffrey Greatrex (Université d’Ottawa)

VIICONTENTS

Byzantium and the Arabs: Cultural Contributions and Intercultural Transmission 175Ahmad Shboul (University of Sydney)

Byzantine Cultural Influence on the West 187Dion Smythe (Queen’s University Belfast)

Byzantine Culture and the Crusader States 197David Jacoby (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

Byzantium and the Slavs 207Sergey Ivanov (National Research University Higher School of Economics)

Caucasia and Byzantine Culture 217Stephen H. Rapp Jr. (Sam Houston State University)

Byzantinisch-Jüdische Interaktion im Östlichen Mittelmeerraum 235Johannes Niehoff-Panagiotidis (Freie Universität Berlin)

Byzantine Culture in Late-Mediaeval Greek States 249Alkmeni Stavridou-Zafraka (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki)

Au tournant du millénaire : la présence de Byzance dans la société 259grecque d’aujourd’huiParis Gounaridis (Université de Thessalie)

Byzantine and Turkish Heritages 269Rudi 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 293Jale Erzen (Middle East Technical University)

VIII CONTENTS

ASPECTS OF BYZANTINE CULTURE

Le droit byzantin : essai d’introduction 301Constantin G. Pitsakis (†) (Université Démocrite de Thrace)

La diplomatie byzantine 317Jean-Claude Cheynet (Université Paris-Sorbonne)

Byzantine Court Culture 331Michael Jeffreys (University of London)

Monastic Culture in the Middle Byzantine Empire 343Margaret Mullett (Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection)

La science byzantine : entre Anciens et Modernes 357Anne Tihon (Université catholique de Louvain)

Eulogie und Panegyrik in Byzanz 367Michael Grünbart (Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster)

Byzantine Writing in the Vernacular 377Ulrich Moennig (University of Hamburg)

Mainstream Texts, Viral Media and Hidden Agendas in the Tradition 387of Patria TextsJohn Burke (University of Melbourne)

Centres de copie de la « Ville » et des provinces à Byzance 399Paul Canart (Bibliothèque apostolique vaticane)

La decoration des manuscrits à l’époque des Paléologues : le Tétraévangile 405Vlorë 10 et la production du Monastère des Hodèges à ConstantinopleAxinia Džurova (Université Saint-Clément d’Ohrid de Sofia)

IXCONTENTS

Cuisine and Dining in Byzantium 423Johannes Koder (University of Vienna)

Attire and Personal Appearance in Byzantium 439Bente Kiilerich (University of Bergen)

Mariage et rapports entre les sexes à Byzance : aspects généraux 453Charis 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 fifteenth 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 confirm 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 finished 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 outfit 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 fine 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 P. Kalamara, Le système vestimentaire à Byzance du IVe jusque’à la fin du XIe siècle (Paris 1995); Parani, Reality of Images 1–100; J.L. Ball, Byzantine Dress. Representations of Secular Dress in Eighth- to Twelfth-century 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).

2 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 difficult 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 fine, but late liturgical vestments most ancient clothes survive merely as scraps.4 From the fifteenth 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 influence is seen in dresses from the seventh to the ninth century.6 Other finds 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 difficult, and suggested dates for individual pieces often vary by many centuries.9 Most silks are found in secondary contexts, some of the finest 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 O. Grabar, ‘The Shared Culture of Objects’ in Court Culture 115–29 at 119–20.4 See, e.g., E. Piltz, Trois sakkoi byzantins: Analyse iconographique, AUU Figura n.s. 17 (Stockholm 1976);

W. Woodfin, ‘Liturgical Textiles’ in Byzantium: Faith and Power 295–310.5 M. Martiniani-Reber, ed., Parure d’une princesse byzantine: tissues archéologiques de Sainte-Sophie de

Mistra (Geneva 2000).6 D. King, ‘Roman and Byzantine Dress in Egypt’ Costume 30 (1996) 1–15.7 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.

8 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.).

9 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.

10 Grabar, ‘Shared Culture’ 119–20. Other Arab texts confirm the wealth and variety of the material. For extant textiles, e.g., Martiniani-Reber, Lyon.

441ATTIRE AND PERSONAL APPEARANCE IN BYZANTIUM

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 difficult 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 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).

12 Id., ‘Silk Economics’ 220 and passim.13 L.W. Mackie, ‘Toward an Understanding of Mamluk silks: National and International Considerations’ Muq 2

(1984) 127–4614 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).

15 H. Blum, Purpur als Statussymbol in der griechischen Welt, Antiquitas Reihe 1/47 (Bonn 1998) 20–41.16 M. Bradley, Colour and Meaning in Ancient Rome, Cambridge Classical Studies (Cambridge 2010) 189–211.17 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 Shellfish in Antiquity’ Coloration Technology 16.1 (2005) 46–52; C. Elliott, ‘Purple Pasts: Color Codification in the Ancient World’ Law & Social Inquiry 33.1 (2008) 173–94.

18 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 Offices, 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 identification 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 clothe-words 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, first 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 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.

20 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.

21 De cerimoniis. G. Fauro, ‘Le veste nel ‘De ceremoniis aulae Byzantinae’ di Costantino VII Porfirogenito’ in A. Iacobini et E. Zanini, eds, Arte profana e arte sacra a Bisanzio, Milion 3 (Rome 1995) 485–523; Pseudo-Kodinos; E. Piltz, Le costume official des dignitaries byzantins à l’époque paléologue, AUU Figura n.s. 26 (Uppsala 1994).

22 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’.

23 Headdress: E. Piltz, Kamelaukion et mitra: Insignes byzantins impériaux et ecclésiastiqes, AUU Figura n.s. 15 (Stockholm 1977).

24 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.

443ATTIRE AND PERSONAL APPEARANCE IN BYZANTIUM

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 first, 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-fitting 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 difficult 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 N.P. Kondakov, ‘Les costumes orientaux à la cour byzantine’ Byz 1 (1924) 7–49.26 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.

27 In 899 Philotheos in the Kletorologion refers to it as the dress of the ethnikoi (foreigners): Listes de préséance 177.

28 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.

29 G. de Jerphanion, ‘Le ‘thorakion’ caractéristique iconographique du onzième siècle’ in id., La voix des monuments: Études d’archéologie. Nouvelle série, Institut Pontifical – 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.

30 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 difficult 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. fig. 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 fifteenth 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 figures are presented almost as if they were posing for a fashion shot. In the Justinian panel are emperor, clergy,

31 Silk reused for St Julian of Rimini, d. c.968, G. Cavallo, gen. ed., I bizantini in Italia (Milan 1982) no. 263, fig. 347; Βυζάντιο ὡς Οἰκουμένη no. 68 (p. 158-61).

32 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.

33 See Ball, Byzantine Dress 79–104, for non-elite dress; Dawson, ‘Women’s Dress’. 34 Deichmann, Ravenna vol. I, 226–56.

445ATTIRE AND PERSONAL APPEARANCE IN BYZANTIUM

civil and military dignitaries and soldiers (fig. 96). Each person can be identified 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 all-over 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 (fig. 97). It is significant that the closer to the empress, the finer 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 personifications 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 figures of female saints in the Tempietto Longobardo at Cividale in north-east Italy, c.750/60 (fig. 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 find again the empress borrowing from the emperor’s wardrobe. In a miniature painting dated 879–83 Empress Eudokia is depicted flanked by her sons, Leo and

35 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.

36 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.

37 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: first 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 specified, 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 official functions required different attire. In the 1070s the emperor Michael VII Doukas (a few years later relabelled Nikephoros Botaneiates) is depicted in different outfits in four full-page miniatures accompanying the Homilies of John Chrysostom (Paris. Coisl. 79).41 In a religious context Michael wears a blue-violet gold-interwoven tunic with a front slit, probably the skaramangion (fol. 2v) (fig. 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 five 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 final 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 difficult 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 J. Lowden, Early Christian and Byzantine Art, Art and Ideas (London 1997, rev. ed. 1998) fig. 110.39 For a detailed discussion of cloth and colour terms in Porphyrogennetos, see Fauro, ‘Le veste’.40 Glory of Byzantium no. 140 (p. 203–4).41 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).

42 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.

43 Wide sleeves became highly fashionable in the mediaeval West; Scott, Medieval Dress e.g. figs 98, 101.

447ATTIRE AND PERSONAL APPEARANCE IN BYZANTIUM

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 (figs 38–9).45 In the first 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 flaring sleeves of Irene’s garment. The larger floral 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 floral pattern. Also the old-fashioned

44 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.

45 T. Whittemore, The Mosaics of Hagia Sophia at Istanbul: Third Preliminary Report: The Imperial Portraits of the South Gallery (Oxford 1942).

46 See, e.g., M.P. Speidel, ‘Late-Roman Military Decorations II: Gold-embroidered Capes and Tunics’ AnTard 5 (1997) 231–7.

47 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.

48 Spatharakis, Portrait 99–102; Galavaris, Ζωγραφικὴ Βυζαντινῶν Χειρογράφων fig. 56.49 For Pollux, see Blum, Purpur als Statussymbol 30.50 B. Kiilerich, ‘Likeness and Icon: The Imperial Couples in Hagia Sophia’ ActaNorv 18 n.s. 4 (2005) 175–203

at 184–6.51 Actually rather one of his predecessors’, as Constantine’s name and portrait head were inserted into the body

of Zoe’s first 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 influenced from the East.54

A favoured Late Byzantine dress is the kabbadion, the coat-like garment with centre-front closing and fitted 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 (fig. 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 tight-fitting 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 fitted 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 Offices, c.1360. In chapter 2 ‘On the uniform and dignity of the offices’ 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 difficult 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-official couples: a female donor,

52 Jacoby, ‘Silk Economics’ 210; id., ‘Silk Production’ 424–6.53 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 fig. 26, Gospel of Henry the Lion, Helmershausen Abbey, Wolfenbüttel.

54 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.

55 Spatharakis, Portrait 148–51; Byzance: L’art byzantin no. 351 (p. 455–8).56 Jeroussalimskaya, ‘Le cafetan’; Knauer, ‘A Man’s Caftan’.57 For buttons found at Mystras: The City of Mystras. Byzantine Hours. Works and Days in Byzantium (Athens

2001) figs 8–9. Buttons became widespread from the 14th century, but they also existed in Antiquity, and were known, e.g., to Scandinavians and Longobards.

58 Pseudo-Kodinos, for text, translation and commentary; E. Piltz, Le costume official des dignitaries byzantins à l’époque paléologue, AUU Figura n.s. 26 (Uppsala 1994), who based on Verpeaux combines textual and visual sources.

449ATTIRE AND PERSONAL APPEARANCE IN BYZANTIUM

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 outfit 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 (fig. 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 double-headed 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 (fig. 102). As in the Typikon, the clothes are a set, making it difficult to distinguish the

59 Spatharakis, Portrait 190–204; A. Cutler & P. Magdalino, ‘Some Precisions on the Lincoln College Typikon’ CahArch 27 (1978) 179–98; Piltz, Costume official figs 56, 58–9, 61–2; Galavaris, Ζωγραφικἠ Χειρογράφων 226.

60 City of Mystras fig. 169.61 Cutler, ‘Precision’ 188: ‘loose-fitting 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.62 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.

63 B. Atsalos, Ch. Bakirtzis, A.A. Karakatsanis, Treasures of Mount Athos (Thessalonica 1997) 504, 518.64 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 difficult 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 fitted garments and the combination of individual items into sets. The imperial chlamys went from floor-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, finally 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 flanked 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. Significantly, 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 flaking, parts of her outfit are difficult 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.

451ATTIRE AND PERSONAL APPEARANCE IN BYZANTIUM

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 fitted style also prevalent in the West. The kabbadion is a close-fitting 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 official 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].

ILLUSTRATIONS480

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)].

ILLUSTRATIONS506

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 507

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].

ILLUSTRATIONS508

Fig. 99. Michael Doukas and courtiers (1070s), Paris. Coisl. 79 [from Βυζάντιο ὡς Οἰκουμένη 130 fig. 26].

ILLUSTRATIONS 509

Fig. 100. Grand Duke Alexios Apokaukos (c.1341–5), Paris. gr. 2144 [after Scott, Medieval Dress fig. 58].

ILLUSTRATIONS510

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 fig. 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)].