With this costume we sometimes find an over garment, which must not, however, be confused with the himation. This is worn over the chiton, but fastened in by the girdle also, and is usually open on one side. (Compare Fig. 15.) This upper garment, which usually is only seen below the girdle, is sometimes made of the same material as the bib, sometimes of a different one, but it usually differs in colour and pattern from the garment worn under it. It is not very evident from the vase pictures how this was put on, but it seems to have been draped and not sewn, and worn over the chiton for more elaborate dress, and fastened together with it by means of the girdle.

With this antique costume the himation was worn as a cloak, which, both in its shape and in the mode of wearing, corresponded absolutely to the large himation worn by men; like this, it specially covered the back and fell over the arms in two points. There is, however, this distinction between the male and female costume, that the women often drew this cloak up so high as to cover the back of the head (compare Fig. 1), a fashion which also continued in later times.

The change which we see gradually produced in this costume on works of art has been often regarded as a real change in the fashion, but was probably

in great part only a consequence of the development of art, which rendered it possible to represent a great deal which at an earlier stage could not be depicted. As in the case of male dress, the dresses on the vase pictures gradually become wider with fuller folds. At first, it is true, they are still so narrow that if a long step is taken the shape of the body becomes very distinct; but the cylindrical form, quite free from folds, which the earliest vase style gives to the woman’s dress below the girdle, disappears entirely. Besides this we find, instead of the outer wrap, a puffing, or kolpos, which henceforth is the characteristic of the female dress. This was arranged in various ways, though in later times it was sometimes dispensed with altogether. There are different modes of producing this kolpos: sometimes it belongs to the dress itself; the length of the dress then so far exceeds that of the body that, in order to prevent the hem from dragging on the ground, a piece must be drawn up above the girdle, which then falls down in folds below it, and in the fashion of the time, which we have first to deal with, often descends a long way, not, however, equally all round the waist, but only in front, and probably also behind. But as the vase pictures often represent this upper part as of an entirely different material from the under dress, it is possible that it was sometimes not connected with the chiton, but was a distinct garment worn over the under dress, and, like the chiton, fastened in by the girdle. (Compare Fig. 16.) If we remember that in the ancient dress of the previous period, the bib was sometimes a distinct garment, we may surmise that this gradually developed into the kolpos close round the waist, and that the fashion of constructing this girding by means of the chiton itself, and not by a separate piece, was a further stage in this development. With this costume we usually find longish sleeves, reaching below the elbow, as a rule wide and puffed, though very narrow round the armholes. It is evident that a chiton of this description, as well as the upper garment, if it was separate, was entirely constructed by sewing, and was put on over the head by passing the arms into the sleeves; for we nowhere find an opening above the girdle in this dress. We do, however, find, when the upper garment is separate, that the chiton has an opening on one side below the girdle. If we remember the remark of Herodotus previously quoted about the introduction of the stitched Ionic linen chiton, it is a natural assumption that this chiton, which was entirely put together by sewing, and worn without pins, was an Ionic garment; and in accordance with this we find this particular form of sleeve on Athenian reliefs as well as on those of Asia Minor.

in great part only a consequence of the development of art, which rendered it possible to represent a great deal which at an earlier stage could not be depicted. As in the case of male dress, the dresses on the vase pictures gradually become wider with fuller folds. At first, it is true, they are still so narrow that if a long step is taken the shape of the body becomes very distinct; but the cylindrical form, quite free from folds, which the earliest vase style gives to the woman’s dress below the girdle, disappears entirely. Besides this we find, instead of the outer wrap, a puffing, or kolpos, which henceforth is the characteristic of the female dress. This was arranged in various ways, though in later times it was sometimes dispensed with altogether. There are different modes of producing this kolpos: sometimes it belongs to the dress itself; the length of the dress then so far exceeds that of the body that, in order to prevent the hem from dragging on the ground, a piece must be drawn up above the girdle, which then falls down in folds below it, and in the fashion of the time, which we have first to deal with, often descends a long way, not, however, equally all round the waist, but only in front, and probably also behind. But as the vase pictures often represent this upper part as of an entirely different material from the under dress, it is possible that it was sometimes not connected with the chiton, but was a distinct garment worn over the under dress, and, like the chiton, fastened in by the girdle. (Compare Fig. 16.) If we remember that in the ancient dress of the previous period, the bib was sometimes a distinct garment, we may surmise that this gradually developed into the kolpos close round the waist, and that the fashion of constructing this girding by means of the chiton itself, and not by a separate piece, was a further stage in this development. With this costume we usually find longish sleeves, reaching below the elbow, as a rule wide and puffed, though very narrow round the armholes. It is evident that a chiton of this description, as well as the upper garment, if it was separate, was entirely constructed by sewing, and was put on over the head by passing the arms into the sleeves; for we nowhere find an opening above the girdle in this dress. We do, however, find, when the upper garment is separate, that the chiton has an opening on one side below the girdle. If we remember the remark of Herodotus previously quoted about the introduction of the stitched Ionic linen chiton, it is a natural assumption that this chiton, which was entirely put together by sewing, and worn without pins, was an Ionic garment; and in accordance with this we find this particular form of sleeve on Athenian reliefs as well as on those of Asia Minor.

Contemporaneously with this change in female dress, the elaboration of the folds mentioned above with cut-out corners and regular zigzag folds, produced by stiffening and ironing, becomes more and more apparent, especially round the hems of the lower garments. It is true we must not depend too much on the monuments, for we often observe on these that only the front hem of the garment has the zigzag folds, while the back hem is quite plain, with only a suggestion of the necessary stiff folds. (Compare Figs. 17 and 17.) It is evident, therefore, especially in the case of the vase painters, that this drapery is not so much an imitation of actual costume as a peculiarity of the artist’s style.

If we may draw any conclusion from the above-mentioned facts as to the differences between Doric and Ionic costume, these do not appear to be fundamental, affecting the shape and appearance of the whole dress, but rather to have depended essentially on the mode of wearing, for the Doric chiton was shaped by pinning, the Ionic constructed by sewing. There is, however, a difference of material, since the Doric chiton was woollen and the Ionic linen. Nor must we understand Herodotus to mean that the Doric dress disappeared entirely after the introduction of the Ionic, for the monuments show us clearly that both kinds existed side by side; so that just at the time of Herodotus the chiton, which, at any rate in its upper part, was not sewn, but fastened by pins or buttons, was the more common. It is true that fashion, which was just as important in antiquity as now, is apparent in various changes, and these are especially conspicuous in pictures by the vase painters of the fifth century, such as Hiero, Duris, Brygos, etc. On these monuments (compare Figs. 4, 18, 19) the female dress is much wider and fuller than before, the kolpos goes all round the

body, and falls down below the hips almost to the knees. There is a sort of mantle, which falls a little way below the breast; there are almost always sleeves, as there were in the previous fashion, but they are generally less puffed and have no narrow armhole, but a wide opening at the arms. The mode of putting on the chiton is also different, and corresponds to the Doric fashion; the sleeves are not sewn together all round, but have a slit at the top, so that when the chiton is put on it is quite open there. The drawing together of the sleeve openings by little fibulae or buttons fastens the chiton together at the neck, and gives the whole dress consistency. Fig. 17, a cithara player about to tie, or possibly to unloose, the girdle which fastens her upper garment, shows this method of putting on and fastening the upper garment very plainly. However, the bib, which is usually found, is absent here.

But if we look somewhat more closely at this costume, we find in it a sort of combination of the Doric and Ionic. The mantle is due to the former, the kolpos to the latter: the fastening with fibulae is characteristic of the former, the sewing of the latter. For we must regard a chiton like that worn by the Maenad on the left in Fig. 18 as one connected piece, one wide garment, more than twice the length of the body, sewn together round the sides, open at top and bottom, out of which the wearer constructed the bib and sleeves by drawing up the folds and letting them fall over the girdle, and by fastening or buttoning on the arms and shoulders. There is, however, reason to suppose that parts of this dress were sometimes separately constructed of different material. On the vase pictures of that period the various parts of the dress are sometimes characterised by different drapery. As a rule, the folds of the dress are marked by unbroken black lines: but, besides these, we sometimes find reddish brown, zigzag, or wavy lines (thus in Fig. 17, the upper part of the woman’s dress; in Fig. 18, the kolpos of the Maenad on the right; in Fig. 19, the kolpos and the sleeve). When we observe (as in Fig. 18) that in other figures the corresponding parts of the dress are all marked by the same lines, we find ourselves almost forced to the conclusion that the artists wished to represent distinct garments separately put on, especially as this distinction of unbroken and zigzag folds can also be traced in sculpture. It would be very easy to imagine it in such a dress as that in Fig. 17; for if in Fig. 16 the upper garment above the girdle is distinct, it might also be the case in Fig. 17. But such an assumption would be more difficult, nay, almost impossible, for Fig. 18. If we assume distinct material for the kolpos, the woman would be wearing three separate garments—the long chiton, which simply covers the whole body, the kolpos, and over that a distinct upper garment with sleeves. The dress in Fig. 19 would be no less complicated. It seems, therefore, that we ought not to lay too much stress on that treatment of the folds; probably the artists made use of it in order to distinguish sometimes between the wavy folds of full garments, sleeves, etc., and the stiff folds of the perpendicular skirt. For we may observe that the wavy folds are never found in these perpendicular garments, such as the chiton and the bib.

If the vase painters are to be relied on, especially in the arrangement of the girding, the fashion at Athens in the middle of the fifth century B.C. was still rather heavy and awkward. It was not until the excessive fulness of the girding was limited that it developed that regular and truly noble dress which we admire in the female figures of classic art and the following period. Still the dress is by no means uniform, for the same chiton can be worn in various ways, according to the arrangement of the girding and bib. The vase picture in Fig. 20 gives examples of this. There were, in particular, two methods. The one was to cover the body from the feet to the shoulders with a piece of stuff, and to fasten this by drawing the points of the folded back piece over the shoulders and hooking them to the points of the front piece, which was also doubled

back. Then the extra piece fell down at the back and front, and the girdle was passed over it. The stuff was then drawn up a little over the girdle, while the ends of the garment fell down over the hips. Strictly speaking, the kolpos here fell over the bib. (Compare the figure on the left.) The second plan was to take a longer piece of the chiton than was required below the girdle, so that the remainder fell on the ground; the upper part was drawn up to the shoulders and fastened there by fibulae, either in such a way that these were visible (in that case the doubled pieces were fastened together), or so that the pins were hidden by the front piece

(then the doubled piece at the back was fastened to the under layer of the front piece, as in Fig. 20). The bib then fell freely over the breast and back till a little above the waist, the superfluous piece below was drawn up over the girdle. The manner of arranging this kind of dress, which is the commoner, is very clearly seen in the bronze statue from Herculaneum represented in Fig. 21. The girl, who is in the act of dressing herself, has already girded the chiton, and is now arranging the bib; she has fastened it on the left shoulder and is now drawing the folded back piece over the right shoulder with her right hand, in order to pin to it the front piece, which she holds in her left hand in such a way that the back piece may fall over the front piece. The points of both then fall over the hips to right and left a little more than half-way down the front breadth. To complete her dress, the girl will then draw up part of the garment, which is too long for walking, over the girdle, and this will appear below the bib. In the dress of the best period this puffing does not fall as low as before (or as that on Fig. 20). It is so arranged that the folds fall lower on the sides than in the middle, so that its lines may follow the outline of the bib, the points of which fall lower at the sides. Thus originated that beautiful costume, inspired by a truly artistic spirit, which we admire in the best Attic works of the age of Pheidias. As an example of this, compare Fig. 22, a Caryatid, from the Erechtheum at Athens.

With this dress sleeves, like those above described, are sometimes, but not always, worn. They are usually half-sleeves, with openings fastened by buttons or fibulae, not pieces separately sewn on, but part of the actual chiton.

The last-described form of the chiton, which formed the kolpos and bib by means of the girdle and pins, continued in the next period, and seems not only to have extended throughout Greece, but also throughout later Greek antiquity down to the Roman period. But there were also several other styles of dress, distinguished partly by their shape, partly by the manner of wearing. Thus, for instance, the general form of the chiton was retained, but the dress was made more comfortable by the separate construction of the bib, which, as we observed, was probably the case at an earlier period too, and by sometimes omitting it altogether. Sometimes, again, only a light chiton was worn without any kolpos or bib, either with a girdle which was sometimes worn above the waist (compare Fig. 23, “A Daughter of Niobe”), or sometimes falling quite freely (compare Fig. 24). Afterwards it was not unusual for the bib to fall below the girdle, while the kolpos was entirely absent (compare Fig. 25), or else fell above the bib (compare Fig. 20). In the graceful female figure in Fig. 26 there is another peculiarity. Here, as in Fig. 25, the chiton is open at one side, even below the hips, which was not the case with the ordinary dress, especially that worn out of doors. It is probable that this was the original form of the so-called Doric chiton, for it is thus that the Doric maidens were dressed, and on this account were mockingly described as “showing their hips.” In the ideal figures the chiton of Artemis and the Amazons,

though shorter, is of the same kind. The form of the chiton fastened together all round originated so early that we only find the kind open at the side in rare instances on the oldest monuments. This chiton corresponds in shape most closely to the short male chiton; like this, it often only extends to the knees, and is fastened on the shoulders by pins without forming the bib. The dress with regular sleeves is also found in the later costume, either connected with the under garment or specially constructed so as to cover only the upper part of the body. It was fastened together all round, and opened at the sleeves, which were constructed by buttons.

The himation continued to be the usual upper garment. In the older costume of the sixth and fifth centuries it is often treated as a scarf in the manner above described, with two points falling down in front over the shoulders (compare Figs. 4 and 4), but afterwards women began to wear the himation in the same way as men, either enveloping the arms entirely or leaving the right arm free (compare Fig. 23). A third mode of wearing the himation, which, however, is commoner in older than in later costume, is to draw it from the right shoulder across the breast to the left hip, leaving the left breast uncovered, and letting the points fall down on the right

side of the body. In the pictures it often looks as though the himation were fastened on the shoulder by pins, or even stitched together. We also find a light kind of shawl, put on something in the manner of the scarf worn by ladies some forty or fifty years ago. In fact, there seem to have been many varieties of female dress in the Alexandrine period, but we are not intimately acquainted with the details, as our principal authorities, the vase pictures, at that time no longer confined themselves as strictly as in the older periods to the prevailing fashion. In one of Theocritus’ idylls a woman puts on first her chiton, then a peronatris (a robe fastened by clasps) of costly material, and over that an ampechonion. It is not clear what sort of garment this peronatris was. On the other hand, the terra-cottas of that period often represent graceful female forms in walking dress, that is, in the chiton and himation. Thus in Fig. 27, a and b, we see a woman in a long dress with a train, wearing over it a cloak drawn over her head in such a manner that only her face is visible. To promote freedom of motion her cloak is drawn up over both arms, which are closely enveloped. In a similar matron-like dress is the lady represented in the terra-cotta figure, No. 28. She holds up her long himation daintily with both hands, to enable her to walk more easily.

We cannot with certainty prove the existence of a chemise, since those expressions which are generally thus interpreted appear to relate to different kinds of chitons. Sometimes we see in vase pictures representing scenes from the baths short garments with little sleeves, which cannot well be anything but chemises, worn under the actual chiton. We must not, however, assume that these were universally worn; far commoner was the band called strophion, corresponding to the modern corset, used to check the excessive development of the breasts, or to hold them up when the firmness of youth was gone.

We know very little about the colour and pattern of the dresses. The clothing worn by men, or, at any rate, those of the lower classes who laboured in the workshop or in the field, was certainly dark, either of the natural colour of the wool or dyed brown, grey, etc. Otherwise the commonest colour for the chiton and himation was white, and, as such garments naturally soon got dirty, they were often sent to the fuller, who washed them and gave them fresh brightness by means of pipeclay and similar methods. On festive occasions gaily-coloured dresses were usually worn, and then even simple people indulged in the luxury of bright colour; though, as a rule, to display this in ordinary, every-day life was regarded in the better ages of Greek antiquity as a mark of vanity or characteristic of a dandy. Naturally, women were more inclined to

bright hues, and they were especially fond of saffron-coloured dresses, and also of materials with coloured borders and rich designs. Generally speaking, we may infer from the works of art that bright colour and rich ornamentation were most popular in the oldest period, and afterwards again in the epoch of declining taste; while the classic period made but a sparing use of either. The older vase pictures almost always represent materials with coloured patterns, either purely ornamental designs (compare Figs. 10, 11, 13), or with representations of figures. Sometimes whole scenes full of figures in coloured embroidery were part of the dress, and this was sometimes arranged in rows, like the decorations on pots in ancient art. (Compare Fig. 12.) This is quite natural if we consider that in the more ancient costume there was scarcely any drapery; both the chiton and the cloak were drawn tightly round the figure, and, therefore, the pictures could be fully developed and seen without any interruption from folds. Purely ornamental patterns are also very common, and show great variety, but very seldom good designs. Checks and diamonds were especially popular.

As the fashion in dress changed, so did the use of materials with patterns; for garments worn at religious ceremonies, or by actors, the coloured embroidery was retained; but in ordinary life the men, and even women, gradually discarded it, or at any rate reduced it to moderate proportions compared with the rich fulness of ornament in the older fashion, which almost concealed the real colour of the dress. This is especially noticeable in the chiton when it falls in free folds, while the old-fashioned chiton, which had very few folds, bore bolder designs. It is also the case with the himation, which even in the classic period, when it no longer fell stiff and straight over the back, but was drawn round the body in plentiful drapery, was often richly adorned with embroidery. The reason is probably because such shawl-like garments are more loosely related to the body, and therefore the introduction of a pattern which weakened the impression of the figure is less disturbing here than in the chiton. However, these bright-coloured cloaks were exceptional luxuries. The fashion of the better period shows its classic sense of beauty in forming chiton and cloak from materials of one colour, and merely introducing ornaments at the seams and edges, and these such as are of especial beauty and noble simplicity.

In the fourth century B.C. a gradual decline is again observable, and after the time of Alexander the Great rich designs, sometimes introducing figures, become commoner, even in purely Hellenic dress. Numerous examples on works of art show us the unaesthetic and absurd side of this fashion. The elaborate patterns give a disturbing appearance to the whole figure; the outline of the body is completely hidden by the dress; and when the drapery is disturbed or folded, in the case of borders or materials covered with figures, the result is sometimes very ridiculous.

As regards the material of the dresses, we mentioned above that when the change described by Herodotus was made, the linen chiton was introduced, but woollen materials were not on that account discarded; and as men ceased to wear the chiton long, it became commoner to make it of wool. The oldest sculpture as a rule represents two distinct materials when once we get beyond the tight-fitting costume of the earliest period. One of these shows fine and flat folds, while the other falls in large, deep folds. We cannot always maintain with certainty that these are two distinct materials, the former wool, the latter linen; sometimes it seems as though there were only two qualities of the same material, one being fine and thin, and the other coarse and thick. Yet the frequent use of linen is proved by the regular parallel and zigzag folds so common in the older art, which could only be produced in linen by artificial means.

As a rule, they wore, as we do, lighter stuffs in the summer and heavier ones in the winter; but though we very often find on archaic monuments transparent garments showing distinctly the outline of the body (compare Figs. 18, 24), we are scarcely justified in assuming a very widespread use of really transparent garments. Even though such thin materials may have been worn at that time, especially by hetaerae, their extensive use in vase painting is probably due to the fact that the painters, not knowing how to represent the outline of the body and the movements of the limbs under the dress, and yet desiring not to hide them completely by the clothes, resorted to this expedient of letting the outline appear through the dress material. These thin stuffs were always common in the dress of the hetaerae, but respectable women used them only as under garments. We may, however, assume that this was also a matter of fashion, since materials from the looms of the island of Amorgos, which were especially noted for their fineness and transparency, were only fashionable for a short time in the period of the older Attic comedy. Later allusions to these stuffs are made chiefly by the learned, and do not refer to actual reality. Moreover, it is natural that the circumstances of the persons concerned played a part in the choice of coarser or finer materials. The stuffs introduced from foreign parts, such as cotton and muslin, could only be worn by the rich, as also silk, which, even in the Alexandrine period, was very rare and expensive. On the other hand, common men wore felt-like materials, and countrymen even tunics of skin or leather.

In Greek antiquity coverings for the feet were not so essential an article of clothing as at the present day, at any rate not for the male portion of the population. At home, and in summer, men as a rule went barefoot; artisans and other members of the lower classes and slaves did so out-of-doors also, as well as people who desired to harden their bodies, like Socrates, or those who perhaps only affected an ascetic mode of life, like some of the Cynic philosophers. At Sparta, where the State took cognisance of the dress and food of the citizens, young men were actually forbidden to wear shoes, and many adhered to this habit even in old age, as, for instance, Agesilaus, who, even as an old man, used to go without shoes and chiton, dressed only in his cloak. Still, it was unusual for men to go out of doors in winter barefoot, as Socrates is said to have done during his campaign in Macedonia.

Generally speaking, the footgear of the Greeks was of two kinds: sandals, that is, mere soles tied under the foot, and actual boots. Between the two, however, there were a great number of transition stages, so that it is sometimes impossible to say to which of the two classes some kinds belonged. Sandals, which were probably the oldest kind, and in Homer apparently the only one, were worn by men and women alike, though far more commonly by the

latter. They consisted of a sole made of several thicknesses of strong leather, with sometimes a layer of cork; to this straps were fastened, which passed across the foot and held them firm. For this purpose (compare the selection in Fig. 29, taken from works of art) a pair of straps passing over the instep and heel were often sufficient, and these were either tied or fastened in such a way that another strap, passing between the first and second toes, was connected with the other two, which were fastened to the edge of the sole and buckled on the instep, the buckle usually having the shape of a heart or a leaf. But these straps were often more numerous, and so complicated as to cover almost the whole foot, and thus resemble a perforated shoe. Sometimes they were continued as far as the ankle, or even the shins (compare the examples in Fig. 30), but this is only the case in men’s dress. Costly and brightly-coloured leather, with gilt and other ornaments, made this footgear, which was naturally simple, both ornamental and expensive.

The boots were something like ours; they covered the whole foot, and were laced or buttoned in front, over the instep, or at the side. In the older period men’s boots generally went above the ankle, and at the front edge had a more or less pointed tongue bent forward. (Compare examples in Fig. 31, which also show us how this tongue gradually became smaller, and at last disappeared entirely.) Afterwards, low shoes, generally stopping short of the ankle, were the rule, especially for women, if they did not wear sandals. Fig. 32 gives various examples of this: they

are usually pointed at the toes, and old Spartan reliefs even represent shoes with points in front as part of female dress. Huntsmen, countrymen, and the like, wore high boots reaching to the shins (??d???de?), laced or buttoned in front, as in Fig. 33.

These generally had broad toes and thick soles, but like the ordinary shoes they had no heels. A common decoration of such boots were broad zigzag lappets of leather, falling down from the upper edge, as in the examples in Fig. 34. Between sandals and boots we find various forms of low shoes, in which the foot is partly covered with leather and partly with straps. Thus there was a kind of slipper covering the upper part of the foot in front, while the back was covered with straps, and another kind which left the toes quite free and covered the rest of the foot. Probably the crepida, which only originated in the Alexandrine period, but then became very common, belonged to this class, and was a shoe with low leather sides, from which straps passed across the foot. Other kinds of shoes we know only by their antique names. Thus there was an elegant kind worn by guests invited to dinner (?a?ta?); and a coarser kind worn chiefly by peasants (?a?at??a?) made of rough leather, and probably not on a block, but roughly sewn together by the country people themselves. In fact, the number of names for footgear used by the ancient writers is very large, and we may thence conclude that the fashion changed frequently. Thus in Greece there were shoes of the Persian fashion. At Athens they wore Laconian shoes; Amyclaean, Sicyonian, Rhodian shoes, and others which are also mentioned, probably refer more to the shape than to the origin. There were also shoes called after celebrated men, who probably made use of them, such as Alcibiades shoes, Iphicrates shoes, etc.; but we cannot illustrate all these from works of art, in spite of the rich variety supplied by them. They also distinguished between shoes which, like our slippers, could be worn on either foot, and those which were made on particular lasts for the right and left foot. The latter were regarded as more elegant, for they laid great stress on having shoes well-fitting and not too wide. They said of people who wore too comfortable shoes that they “swam about” in them. It was a mark of poverty or avarice to wear patched boots, and heavy nailed shoes were only worn by soldiers or country people, and for others were regarded as a mark of rusticity.

The material used was, as a rule, leather, but occasionally felt. They were mostly black; but we also find coloured shoes mentioned, especially for women, and sometimes see them represented on polychrome vases.

Stockings were unknown to antiquity, but sometimes in extreme cold it was the custom to wrap fur or felt round the legs. Thus, in Homer, old Laertes, when doing rough work in his garden wears gaiters of neat’s leather, and also gloves to protect himself against the thorns. As a rule, the latter were also unknown; only actors wore something of the kind, but their object was, by apparent lengthening of the arms, to harmonise them with the artificial increase in height.

As a rule, men went bare-headed, or wore caps in bad weather. Generally speaking, they distinguished, as we do, between hats and caps. The hat, whose distinguishing mark was the brim, bore the name petasos. It originated in Thessaly, but spread to other places, and at Athens was regarded as the characteristic riding hat, and as such was worn with the chlamys by youths. We see many in this dress on the Parthenon frieze. Otherwise the petasos was essentially a part of travelling dress, and, therefore, a usual attribute of Hermes as messenger of the gods. When older men wore the petasos there was generally some distinct reason for it. (Compare Figs. 9 and 9.) The shapes of the petasos on works of art are so various that it is sometimes difficult to tell whether they ought all to be included under the same name.

Fig. 36.