Byzantine Textiles as tool in the Power Games
Until now, I have talked about motifs, colours, and production and consumption process textile pieces of Byzantium. Now, I want to talk about the fact that these dresses, cloths, fabrics, ornaments and colours had merely been simple consumption goods with plain function of covering humans and objects. In fact, Byzantine textile pieces had political, symbolic and social meanings; they should be revaluated not only plain economic production processes and needs, but also according to their political, symbolic and social meanings attached to these textile pieces and humans using it. I want to remind what Clifford James Geertz said about culture; for him the culture is “a historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and their attitudes toward life”[44]. He also argues that the culture of a people is kind of texts, themselves ensembles, which the other who are coming from the outside of that culture like me to read over.[45] It was clear that Byzantine textile as an product of Byzantine culture shows us how these people communicate with public and how they represented their status by using symbols and differentiate themselves among other in society that we are still doing today with our luxurious or simple clothes, fashionable shoes and colourful household textiles.
In political dimension, textile products in Byzantium were another means to reproduce social hierarchy through the color, motif and other aspects.[46] As Pierre Bourdieu claims socialiser institutions (Family, State, education or working place) create possibilities of passing their symbolical values, knowledge, tastes or many other indicators called as habitus, from one member of a group to another from generations to generations.[47] Any member of a society with or without knowing it acquires their taste and interiorized it. Accordingly, a member of a social group usually shares similar tastes. Social groups produce and reproduce some tendencies over personal tastes. As a result of such tendencies, social groups were like to identify themselves and reproduce social hierarchies not only by power struggles, economic differences or political power, but also thanks to their taste and preferences for their dresses, textiles, artistic choices, musical tastes, gastronomic tendencies and many other social aspects.[48] Now, I want to demonstrate that the preferences and taste for fabrics, garments, dresses, ornaments or colors were not simple result of personal caprices of their heart, but these taste and preferences were shaped according to their political, economical and social status and in their turn these tastes and preferences produced the hierarchy as well.
Likewise, Byzantine citizens chose also their cloths, especially during the ceremonial occasions, were according to social status of people; while a member of the elite class could always be easily distinguished from lower classes, it was possible to determine the artists, merchants and peasant from each other. Let me explain how such social stratification throughout the taste for textile could be working by using example of women fabric accessories. As expected the silk in hats was common in higher class women thanks to their higher purchasing power. The higher class women preferred silk headscarves (veleria) always in blue. On the other hand, the cotton headscarves usually common in lower classes were generally in green, followed by white, blue and rich purple. [49] When high class women had monastic cloaks in orange and green with different garments and preferred turban with golden symbols and patterns the lower class women wore turbans with mundane models and geographical shapes[50]. Moreover, there could be a distinction between Imperial family and other nobles as well. Most probably, while Imperial family’s women wore purple hats, the other nobles preferred white. [51] Most elaborated distinction could be made probably better with belts and shoes. As a part of ceremonial dress, men but especially women from dignitaries had red leather belts (Kleterologion) with precious stones. [52] On the other hand, the leather belts with golden or precious buckle were wore by wealthy citizens. There are belt types special to Imperial family; wedding belt with golden and pearl ornaments was worn by Byzantine royalty. [53] The taste for shoe was not different; while Imperial women wore red, brown, black and gilded shoes, the shoe called as hypodemata was a cheap shoe for lower classes and slaves.[54]
The differentiation of classes occurred in everyday cloth as well, while tunics never wore by the highest class women, [55] silk rarely took place in the life of lower class. Ordinary citizens were wearing linens, woollens, cottons and mixed fabric and animal hair fabrics rather than richly embroided silks. Phaidon Koukoules supported that, wool remained the most common material for manufacturing textile but silk, cotton and linen were all available for finer garments.[56]Like type of fabric, style gives meaning to your clothes and determined your position in society. In manuscript description of Skylitzes, we observe that high ranking Byzantines seem to have had variety of styles from which to choose. The traditional full-length patrician costumes, the full caftan with wide sleeves and the straight caftan with tight sleeves, worn with high boots. With its literary description also Constantine Manasses proves that when aristocrats went hunting, they tucked up the long hems of their robes, which normally dragged on the ground.[57] The differentiation of social status with clothes was obvious for Byzantium iconographies that while common people are represented with short tunics, patricians’ generally long ones. Similarly, monks could be identified by their habits (schemata), although only the relative simplicity of cleric garments might distinguish them from laymen.[58] The servants are shown wearing the dress called as delmatikon.[59] Consequently, it can be argued that Byzantine textiles and dress had a crucial role in political life by using textile as a symbol of status maintain order and create social balance between elite, ruler class and mesoi. The cloth preference was an important element in multiplicity of levels in society and the complexity of structures such as relationship of church and State and state to society that cloth managed to penetrate[60].
The textile was used to express symbolic power as well; this is most obvious in international relations. In the diplomatic dimension, glamorous luxury clothes and garments were preferred to swank other states by displaying projected power, majesty and accumulation of wealth. Especially these textile products often included among the precious gift exchanged between princely courts and offered as an expression of honour to foreign princes to their ambassadors and occasionally to visitors.[61] The gifts of textile products represent another way of establishing symbolic power. The Byzantines sometimes send textile products as standard dowry gifts[62] to the court of foreigners’ rules as a symbol of Byzantine marriage culture. By sending these precious textile, Byzantine rulers did not only honour the foreign rulers but also depicted themselves as civilized, wealthy and controlling power in diplomatic relations. Emperor Nicophoras to Liutprand Cremona shows us how Byzantine defined themselves according to their civilising elements by using textile as a symbol of political power: “As we the Byzantines surpass all the other nations in wealth and wisdom so it is right that we should surpass them in dress. Those who are unique in the grace of their virtue, should also be unique in the beauty of their raiment.[63]
I can go on giving examples, but this talk should be stop due to time limitation. Now, I am concluding my ideas. I want to say that Byzantine textile is influential even today because of its immense variety of cloths, fabrics, garments, decorations or colors. This vivid textile production was resulted from first strong local production. Even in using similar designs with other cultures Byzantine Empire exceeds them in the standard as well as in the innovations.[64] For example, the list of a Florentine merchant, Francesco Balduccini, shows that Constantinople had still been a capital of cloths of gold or gold interwoven silks after the destruction of its silk manufactory in city with the fourth Crusade.[65] The production shifted to another city of Byzantium, Thessaloniki continued to produce silk for trade. The second factor important was textile preference collided with symbolic and political power. The Byzantines presented their social statues and socio-economic and political power through textiles. For example, the dignitaries were assigned their different colors, special embroideries and distinct embellishment.[66] Even wearing same dresses, the Byzantines reflected their social differences. The clerks wore single piece (paenula) with hood, which were inspired by Maria’s icons. On the other hand, cloaks called as mandyas, were woven in various materials including silk, with different colors from Imperial purple to expensive red. These latter cloaks were decorated by different garments including sea/thalassa, a much recommended imperial gift.[67]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Boucher, François. 20,000 years of Fashion the History of Costume and Personal Adornment. New York : Harry N. Abrams, 1967.
Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A social Critique of the Judgement of Taste .Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984.
Bourdieu, Pierre. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture.
London: Publications, 1990.