TU´NICA
TU´NICA The
χιτὼν
or
tunica was a shirt: or shift, and served as
the chief under-garment of the Greeks and Romans, both men and women.
Greek
In the earliest period, known to, us by the finds in pre-historic graves,
its use seems to have been unknown, a loin-cloth or apron [
SUBLIGACULUM] being its
predecessor. In Homer, however, the linen
χιτὼν had already become part of the regular costume of men,
though it was not yet worn by women, who retained the
πέπλος as their sole garment [
PALLA]. That this Homeric
χιτὼν was of linen and not of wool
is shown by many passages and by the epithets used of it. The
locus classicus is
Od.
19.232, where the shirt of Odysseus is said to have shone
like an onion skin; to have glistened like the sunlight, and. yet to
have been soft. Besides
σιγαλόεις (cf.
Od. 10.60), the epithets
νηγάτεος (
Il.
2.43),
εὔννητος (
Il. 18.596), and
εὔκλωστος (
Hymn. Ap. Pyth. 25) are
applied to it, and all of these apply to linen better than to wool. This
χιτὼν or shirt was worn under a
woollen cloak or mantle [
PALLIUM] during the day, but was taken off on going to bed (cf.
Od. 1.437, of Telemachus,
μαλακὸν δ᾽ἔκδυνε χιτῶνα). It was worn
[p. 2.903]without a cloak indoors (cf.
οἰοχίτων,
Od. 14.488), and even outdoors when
taking active exercise, as in dancing (
Il.
18.595). It was also worn under the corslet (
θώραξ) in time of war (cf.
Il. 3.357;
7.251). This particular form of tunic is called in
Il. 5.111 (cf.
Il. 21.31) (
στρεπτὸς
χιτών, and the epithet has given much difficulty to all
commentators since Aristarchus. He explained it as meaning a coat of
scale-armour (cf. Apollon.
Lex.). Another
interpretation, however, was given by Aristonicus, who took
στρεπτὸς to mean “well-spun”
(cf. Schol.
ad Il. 21.31), and this seems on the whole
the more probable meaning (cf. Studniczka,
Beiträge, p. 63). Of the shape and size of the
χιτὼν there are but few decisive
hints in Homer. There is the mention of the trailing shirt of Ionians
(
Il. 13.685,
Ἰαόνες ἑλκεχίτωνες: cf.
Hymn. Ap.
Del. 147), but this is commonly held to be a late insertion. All
we can say is that the warrior naturally wore a short
χιτών, whatever that in ordinary use may
have been like. That he used a girdle when wearing it under a coat of
mail seems unquestionable, but there is no evidence that it was girded
in ordinary life.
The Homeric
χιτὼν was made from the
linen cloth that came from the household loom, by sewing up the side. It
was accordingly an
ἔνδυμα (cf.
δῦ,
Il. 18.416;
δύσατο,
Il. 23.739;
δῦνεν,
Od. 15.61;
indutus), “put on,” not wrapped round the body,
like the
πέπλος of women (cf.
PALLIUM). It does not seem,
like the later forms, to have been fastened at the shoulders with
brooches or pins; at any rate these are not mentioned. The Homeric
χιτὼν appears to have been
unornamented except for a fringe (cf.
τερμιόεις,
Od. 19.242), probably left from the
weaving, like that on modern towels. [
TELA p. 766
a.]
In the period which followed the Epic age, the long
χιτὼν came into almost universal use as the costume of
men in time of peace, and at the same time was adopted by women. The
account of how it became part of the costume of the Athenian women is
told by Herodotus in a passage (5.88) explained in the article
PALLA The change was brought
about by the adoption of a linen shift worn under the primitive
πέπλος. The process seems to have gone even
further, and led to the wearing of two shifts, one over the other, for
an edict of Solon forbids the wearing of more than three garments by
women (
Plut. Sol. 21,
5). The fashion, even if it is not referred
to in this edict, is at least as old as the 6th century, and can be
traced on early redfigure vases and statuettes. It is chiefly on these
vases that the vast variety of forms which existed in classical times
begin to appear. They may be roughly classified as (1) those which are
rectangular and have no sleeves, except the halfsleeves formed by
gathering the material together with a girdle at the waist; and (2)
those which have sleeves added, either of a different piece of stuff or
specially woven at the top. Both have the sides sewn up. Taking the
first class, there are two main forms,--those in which the top is left
open, and the garment fastened on the shoulders by brooches or pins.
This shape is shown in fig. 1, which represents a rectangle of cloth,
the old
πέπλος in fact, with the ends
sewn together and the top folded over all round. This fold is not always
present, but is very common. It is usually, but erroneously, known
 |
|
ZZZ
|
to archaeologists as the
διπλοὶς or
διπλοΐδιον, but
it was really called the
ἀπόπτυγμα
(cf. Böhlau,
de re Vestiaria, p.
17). The garment was fastened to the shoulders by brooches at
a and
a‘, b
and
b‘. If sleeves were wished for,
they could be formed by the simple process of pinning up the top from
the shoulder downwards, as in fig. 2. In this
 |
|
Fig. 2. Statuettes from Herculaneum. ( Mus.
Borbon. ).
|
case, however, there would be no
ἀπόπτυγμα. The second form of this class (1) is shown
in fig. 4. In it two
 |
|
Fig. 3. Thalia. (British Museum.)
|
rectangles of cloth have been sewn together on three sides, in
such a way that a sack is formed with a hole in the bottom for the head
to go through, and two holes at the sides for the arms. When girdled
round the waist, the seams on each side of the neck become sleeves. This
is seen on the female figures in the cut fiom the Harpy Tomb, under
THRONUS The second class
(
χιτὼν χειριδωτός), where the
sleeves were in a separate piece, or at any rate formed by cutting up
the rectangular shape, were considered less genuinely Greek than the
former. [
MANICA] Thus
Herodotus tells as a characteristic of the Persians that they wore
sleeves (7.61), and even in Roman times, when their
[p. 2.904]use was universal, it was looked on as in origin a barbaric
fashion (
Verg. A. 9.616). In Art
 |
|
ZZZ
|
such sleeves form part of the typical Asiatic costume on
vase-paintings and other monuments. Yet even in the monuments there are
figures like the handmaid on the grave-stone of Thrasiklea, under
STELE with quite tight
sleeves. They also are sometimes seen on old men; and, to judge by the
inscriptions, in which
χειριδωτὸς
χιτωνίσκος is mentioned, were in common use with women. In
later times a sleeved shirt formed part of the traditional costume of
the comic actor [see cut under
SOCCUS]. It is not easy to give an account of the make of
such a garment; but one form of it which belongs to the Hellenistic
period, though probably much older, has come down to us in the linen
tunics found in the Fayoum. Most of these come from Coptic graves, and
many are in a state of perfect preservation. They have been found in
such numbers that few large museums are without specimens. The best
English collection is at South Kensington. The general shape of the
garment as it came from the loom is shown in fig. 5; a kind of cross
with very thick vertical
 |
|
ZZZ
|
and very thin transverse bar. This is folded double and the
sides sewn together. The arms of the cross then form sleeves, and form a
shirt, the head being thrust through a slit in the centre left while
weaving (fig. 6). This form of
χιτὼν is
usually ornamented with two embroidered bands [
CLAVUS] falling from the
 |
|
ZZZ
|
shoulders before and behind, giving the appearance of a
surplice and stole seen in front. It is indeed the direct ancestor of
the surplice, and may be seen in numberless Roman paintings at Pompeii
and elsewhere (cf. cuts under
CLAVUS Vol. I. p. 455
a).
The methods of wearing these different forms of the
χιτὼν were very varied. It could be worn long or short,
girded or ungirded, alone or in combination, with long or short
ἀπόπτυγμα. To fix names to the different
varieties is a task which so far has baffled scholars and
archaeologists, even as far back as Roman times. Thus, for instance,
many attempts have been made to discover definite differences between
χιτών, χιτώνιον, and
χιτωνίσκος, but without success. That they
were indefinite, even in classical times, is shown by a glance at the
inscription recording the garments in the treasury of Artemis at Brauron
(
C. I. G. 1.155;
C. I. A. 2.754). In
it
χιτώνιον is used ten,
χιτὼν thirteen, and
χιτωνίσκος thirty times; but in each case defining
epithets of colour, material, pattern, shape, and size are added,
showing that the difference, if any, cannot have lain in these obvious
characteristics. The inscription disposes, if of nothing else, of the
view based on Ammonius (p. 148, Valcken.:
χιτωνίσκος μὲν γὰρ ὁ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς χιτών, χιτώνιον δὲ τὸ
τῆς γυναικὸς ἔνδυμα), that the
χιτωνίσκος was the man's shirt,
χιτώνιον the woman's shift. The distinction, if there
was any, must rather be sought in the use of the diminutive, to prevent
a confusion of two shirts or shifts worn one over the other; just as at
Rome the
tunica interior was distinguished
from the
stola.
The epithets in the Brauron inscription, which is the
locus classicus on the subject, deserve a detailed
analysis. First as to colour, there were shifts of white (
λευκός), purple (
ἁλουργής), saffron [
κροκωτός, common as a substantive in Aristophanes, who also
uses
κροκωτίδιον, in every case meaning
a
χιτὼν or
χιτώνιον, and never a
ἱμάτιον (
PALLIUM), as Hermann (ed. Blümner, p. 188) maintains];
sea-green (
γλαυκειοῦς), frog-green
(
βατραχειοῦς, cf.
βατραχίς, a froggreen garment, Arist.
Eq. 1406), and yellow (
θάψινος). The material of which they were made was hemp
(
στύππινος), fine flaxen linen
(
ἀμόργινος, cf.
Aristoph. Lys. 150,
χιτωνίοισι τοῖς ἀμοργίνοις) and carded
wool (
κτενωτός). They were embroidered
(
ποίκιλος, περιποίκιλος,
παραποίκιλος) and had patterns of stripes (
πυργωτὸς) and spots (
κατάστικτον).). Some had borders (
περιηγητός, παρυφὴν ἔχει) of purple (
παραλουργές, πλατυαλουργής), the borders
being broad or narrow (
ἡμιυφής). The
epithets referring to the shape and make of the
χιτὼν are more difficult to explain; the commonest are
“double” (
διπλοῦν) and
“single” (
ἁπλοῦν),
and probably signify that the former garment was folded over at the top,
forming an
ἀπόπτυγμα, the latter plain
and without this bib-like fold. This explanation would also apply to the
difficult word
διπλοΐς, and its
diminutive
διπλο̈́διον, these simply
being doubled shifts of the former kind. If this is so, the
ἡμιδιπλοΐδιον may be simply a shift of
single thickness without the upper fold, or else a doubled one with the
ἀπόπτυγμα coming down half its
length (see second cut under art. AEGIS). Of the remaining epithets in
the inscription, the most important are those which mark off two shirts
as “a man's” (
ἀνδρεῖος）
and “a boy's” (
καρτὸς
παίδειος).
Turning to the monuments, we find on early black-figured vases (1) that
old men wear a long ungirded
χιτὼν
under a
χλαῖνα (see fig. of Peleus
under
PALLIUM p. 318
b). This form of
χιτὼν seems to have been known as the
χιτὼν ὀρθοστάδιος, which Pollux (7.49)
says was not girded. This fashion of dress becomes less frequent in
later monuments, a short
χιτὼν reaching
down to the knees taking its place. This change is described by
Thucydides (
1.6), who says that it was due to
a growing simplicity of manners and the adoption of the Spartan style of
dress. This was chiefly seen in the adoption of the
τρίβων, a garment which, being a mantle or
plaid rather than a
χιτών, is to be
classed with the
ἱμάτιον. [PALLIUM; TRIBON.] This long ungirded
χιτὼν ὀρθοστάδιος remained
[p. 2.905]the professional garb of flute-players and
harpers long after it had ceased to be fashionable in ordinary use. The
flute-player in the article CAPISTRUM, and the well-known statue of
Apollo Citharoedus in the Vatican [see cut on p. 318], both wear it. In
early Greek vase-paintings, charioteers also are nearly always
represented in this long
χιτών, leading
the older archaeologists in same cases to mistake them for women.
Another form of
χιτών, the short shirt
of stout stuff which artisans, labourers, and fishers wore, the
ἐξωμίς, has been described in an article by
itself [
EXOMIS]. It gets its
name from the fact that it was worn with one shoulder bare. (2) The
women, on the other hand, in archaic art wear the old
πέπλος: but on early red-figure vases and
the female statues discovered in 1886 on the Acropolis at Athens, they
are shown wearing a shift under their mantles. Later on in vasepaintings
and statuettes of the latter half of the 6th century, some are
represented wearing two. This was the custom in Hellenistic times, but
is seldom to be traced in the art of the 5th and 4th centuries. This is
no doubt due to the artistic elimination which during the best periods
of sculpture and painting led the artists to idealise their drapery.
When a more realistic school grew up towards the end of the 4th century,
the double
χιτὼν is often seen on
female figures, especially on those of the Muses. (See cut on p. 903.)
This is the costume which Praxinoa puts on in the famous xvth Idyl of
Theocritus, for the feast of Adonis at Alexandria. She receives her
visitor in
négligé,
wearing only a
χιτών, but makes her
outdoor toilet by putting on another
χιτὼν fastened at the shoulders with a brooch (
περονατρίς, 50.21; cf. 50.34), and completes
it by wrapping a cloak (
ἀμπέχονον）
round her.
It has since the time of Miller been customary to divide the
χιτῶνες worn by Greek women into two
exhaustive divisions, Doric and Ionic. He gave the name of Dorian chiton
to the
χιτὼν σχιστός, which was worn
by Spartan girls. This, it has been shown in the article
PALLA was the
ἀρχαίη ἐσθὴς which Herodotus speaks of,
identifying it with the
Δωρὶς ἐσθής
(5.88). It was in fact a survival of the older
πέπλος. The peculiarity of the Spartan woman was that
she wore it alone, being in fact
μονόπεπλος (
Eur. Hec. 933）
without a
χιτὼν below. This, as the
side was open (
σχιστός), was considered
indecent in the rest of Greece, and many are the sneers in the poets
(Eur.
Androm. 595). The offence against
modesty was made even greater by not using a girdle (cf. Soph.
Fr. 791,
καὶ τὰν νεόρτον,
ἇς ἔτ᾽ ἄστολος χιτών, θυραῖον ἀμφὶ μηρὸν πτύσσεται,
Ἑρμιόναν, where
ἄστολος means
ἄζωστος).
It has been remarked in
PALLA
that this garment was not called
χιτὼν
until the 5th century B.C., and it should be
noted that Herodotus in this passage is careful to call it
ἐσθής. It was only because the Spartan
women wore it as a single garment that it got the name Dorian. This,
however, does not imply that it was unknown in other parts of Greece,
where it was worn over an ordinary
χιτών, and could take several different forms. The
distinction between Dorian and Ionic should in fact, if used, refer to
material rather than shape; for while the Dorian
χιτὼν was of wool, the Ionian was of linen. It was from
early times characteristic of the peoples of Asia Minor, appearing for
instance on archaic monuments, like the statues from the avenue of the
temple of Branchidae, now in the British Museum, but had already in the
6th century spread over Greece proper. It was worn even in Sparta, and
appears on both men and women on most of the early grave-reliefs found
there, so that even on this ground the distinction breaks down.
2. Roman
At Rome, as has been shown in the article
SUBLIGACULUM the shirt or tunica was not adopted
until a comparatively late date. This is all the stranger when one
considers the universality with which the Etruscans of the 5th and 6th
centuries B.C. are depicted dressed in it. However, in the last three
centuries of the Republic it was an indispensable garment, worn under
their cloaks by both men and women.
The man's tunica (
tunica virilis) was
practically identical with the last two forms of the
χιτὼν described above (figs. 5 and 6), being
two pieces of linen or woollen cloth sewn together [cf. Varro,
L.
L. 9.79, “Non si quis tunicam in usu ita (inusitate)
ita consult ut altera plagula sit angustis clavis, altera latis
utraque in suo genere caret analogia” : cf.
Suet. Aug. 94, “Sumenti virilem togam
lati clavi resuta ex utraque parte ad pedes decidit” ].
Sleeves--that is to say, sleeves down to the wrist--were sometimes worn,
but such
tunicae manicatae (or
manuleatae) were considered effeminate (Gellius,
vi. (vii.) 12: “Tunicis uti virum prolixis utra brachia et usque
in primores manus ac prope in digitos Romae atque in omni Latio
indecorum fuit. Eas tunicas Graeco vocabulo nostri chirodotas
appellaverunt, feminisque solis vestemlonge lateque diffusam
indecere exstrinaverunt:” cf.
Cic.
in Catil. 2.1. 0, 22;
Suet. Jul. 45). Under the Empire, however,
such
tunicae were the ordinary wear of
every one (cf. St. Augustine,
de doctr. Chr. 3.2, 20,
“Talares et manicatas habere apud Romanos veteres flagitium
erat nunc autem honesto loco natis, cum tunicati sunt non eas habere
flagitium est” ).
At Rome it was usual to wear two shirts, one over the other, the under
being called the
tunica interior or
subucula. Both were in the earliest
times of wool, and indeed it was not until under the Empire, in the 4th
century A.D., that linen was commonly used for
making
tunicae.
The tunica was worn with a girdle fastened round it at the loins, and its
length could be varied simply by pulling it through the girdle.
Quintilian says that it should just reach below the knees in front and a
little lower behind. If however it is a tunica with the latus clavus, it
is better to wear it without a girdle at all (11.3, 138-9, “Cui
lati clavi jus non erit ita cingatur ut tunicae prioribus oris infra
genua pallum, posterioribus ad medios poplites usque perveniant. Nam
infra mulierum est, supra centuriorum. Ut purpurae recte descendant
levis cura est. Notatur interim negligentia. Latum habentium clavus
modus est ut sit paullum cinctis summissior:” cf.
Suet. Jul. 54). For active exercise, when
for instance one was travelling (Hor.
Sat.
1.5, 6), it was girded higher.
Indoors the girdle was thrown aside for the sake of comfort (Hor.
Sat. 2.1, 73), but to appear in public
without it (
discinctus), as Maecenas often
did (Sen.
Ep. 114, 4), was considered slovenly (cf. Hor.
Epod. 1.34,
discinctus
nepos).
[p. 2.906]It was equally untidy to let
one's shirt hang too long, for this savoured of the shop-boy or the
woman rather than the gentleman (Plaut.
Pseud. 1298,
“Quis hic homo est cum tunicis longis quasi cauponius?”
1303, “Sane genus hoc muliebriosum est tunicis demissis;”
Cic. Clu. 40,
111; Hor.
Sat. 1.2, 25; Propert.
5.2, 38, “Mundus demissis institor in tunicis” ).
The tunica girt high and tight was the ordinary dress of a slave (
Juv. 3.93, “Horrenti tunicam non reddere
servo:” cf. Hor.
Sat. 2.8, 70)
and of free labourers (
Hor. Ep. 1.7,
65). If a cloak were worn by the slave, it
would be a
sagum or
paenula, and Cato, the censor, considered an allowance of
one tunica 3 1/2 feet long and one sagum to each slave sufficient for
two years. This style of dress is well shown on the figure from Trajan's
Column given as an illustration to the article
FUNDA The tunica of the legionary was
practically the same as this, as may be seen from representations of
soldiers;
 |
|
Roman legionary. (From Arch of Severus.)
|
the above figure, for instance, from the Arch of Septimius
Severus. The shirt worn by ordinary citizens appears in the
illustrations on p. 848.
The
tunica muliebris, or shift of Roman
women, did not differ much from the Greek forms described above. It was
the custom, however, to wear two shifts; the upper being called the
stola, the latter the
tunica interior, subucula, interula, or (in late
Latin)
camisia. The article
STOLA treats of the former,
and so it is only the
subucula which
remains to be spoken of. The earliest form of this garment was the SUPPARUM, the first linen garment adopted at
Rome. It was worn with sleeves, if the
stola were without them, but otherwise, except at the neck,
is not visible in statues (cf. the statue of Livia in the article
PALLA), and is in most cases
not represented at all. Needless to say, literature is well-nigh silent
about it. The
regilla or
tunica recta in which the bride was clad on the day of
marriage is shown on several sarcophagus-reliefs. It did not differ in
shape from that in ordinary use, but, as is explained under
TELA (p. 769
a), was of a special texture.
(Boehlau,
Quaestiones de re Vestiaria
Graecorum, Weimar, 1884; Studniczka,
Beiträge
zur G. d. altgr. Tracht, Vienna, 1886; Helbig,
Das
homerische Epos, 1887, pp. 115, 175, &c.; W.
Müller,
Quaestiones Vestiariae,
Göttingen, 1890; Baumeister,
Denkmäler,
art. Chiton, Toga (Tunica); Iwan Müller,
Handbuch,
Privataltertümer, pp. 402, 413, 416, 422, 424, 431,
440, 804, 875, 927; Marquardt,
Privatleben. See Index, s.
v.
Tunica.）
[
W.C.F.A]
