kings, at all events, undertook priestly duties, and not until after
the fall of Jerusalem does the history allow that usurpation of
monarchical rights upon which the prophet Ezekiel (q.v.) encroaches.
The embodiment of political and religious supremacy
displayed in the high priest’s authority, clothing and symbols
can only reflect exilic or rather post-exilic conditions.[1] (See
further Priest.) In the Maccabaean age the high priest Jonathan
received the purple robe and crown and the buckle of gold worn
on the shoulder as a sign of priestly and secular rank (1 Macc.
x. 20, 38, 89, xi. 58). His brother Simon received similar honours
(xiv. 48 sq.), and Hyrcanus, the “second David,” was supposed
to have had two crowns, one royal and the other priestly (Talm.
Kidd. 66a). The later Rabbis wore most sumptuous apparel,
and were crowned until the death of Eliezer ben Azarya.
Thus there was a real significance in ceremonial investiture (cf. Num. xx. 26, 28) and in the transference of clothes (cf. Elisha and Elijah’s mantle, 2 Kings ii. 13). Further the exchange of garments was not meaningless, and the prohibition in Deut. xxii. 5 points to religious or superstitious beliefs, on which see J. G. Frazer, Adonis, Attis and Osiris (2nd ed.), pp. 428–435. On the claim involved by the act of throwing a garment over another (Ruth iii. 9; cf. 1 Kings xix. 19), see W. R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage[2], 105 sq.; J. Wellhausen, Archiv f. Religionswiss. (1907), pp. 40 sqq.; and on some interesting ideas associated with sandals, see Ency. Bib., s.v. “Shoes.” As a sign of grief, or on any occasion when the individual felt himself brought into closer contact with his deity, the garments were rent (subsequently a conventional slit at the breast sufficed) and he donned the sak, a loin-cloth or wrapper which appears to be a survival of older and more primitive dress.[2] Later tradition (Mish., Kil. ix. 1) does not endorse Ezekiel’s prohibition of woollen garments among the priests in the sanctuary (xliv. 17 sq.). Why the layman was forbidden a mixture of wool and linen (sha’atnēz, Deut. xxii. 11) is difficult to explain, though Maimonides perhaps correctly regarded the law as a protest against heathenism (on the magical use of representatives of the animal and vegetable kingdom, in conjunction with a metal ring, see I. Goldziher, Zeit. f. alttest. Wissens. xx. 36 sq.).
Ancient oriental costume then cannot be severed from the history and development of thought. On the one side we may see the increase of rich apparel and the profusion of clothes by which people of rank indicated their position. On the other are such figures as the Hebrew prophets, distinguished by their hairy garment and by their denunciation of the luxury of both sexes.[3] Superfluous clothing was both weakening and deteriorating; this formed the point of the advice of Croesus to Cyrus (Herod. i. 155). But “foreign apparel” was only too apt to involve ideas of foreign worship (Zeph. i. 8. sq.), and the recognition that national costume, custom and morality were inseparable underlay the objection to the Greek cap (the πέτασος) introduced among the Jews under Antiochus Epiphanes (2 Macc. iv. 10-17, with the parallel 1 Macc. i. 11-15). The Israelite distinctive costume and toilet as part of a distinctive national religion was in harmony with oriental thought, and, as a people chosen and possessed by Yahweh, “a kingdom of priests and an holy nation” (Ex. xix. 5 sq.; cf. Is. lxi. 6), certain outward signs assumed a new significance and continued to be cherished by orthodox Jews as tokens of their faith. The tassels attached by blue threads to the four corners of the outer garment were unique only as regards the special meaning attached to them (Num. xv. 37-41; Deut. xxii. 12), and when in the middle ages they marked out the Jew for persecution they were transferred to a small under-garment (the little tālīth), the proper tālīth being worn over the head in the synagogue. Similarly, sentences bound on the left arm or placed upon the forehead (Deut. xi. 18, cf. the high priest’s plate) find analogies in the means taken elsewhere to ensure the protection of or to manifest one’s adherence to a deity; the novelty lies in the part these sentences took in the religion (see Phylactery). While the particular prohibition regarding the beard and hair in Lev. xix. 27 (cf. Ezek. xliv. 20) was for the avoidance of heathen customs, the pēyōth or long curls which became typical in the middle ages are reminiscent of the Horns-curl of Egypt and the Mahommedan “heaven lock” and evidently served as positive distinctive marks. Apart from these details later Jewish dress does not belong to this section. In the Greek and Roman period foreign influence shows itself very strongly in the introduction of novelties of costume and of classical terms, and the subject belongs rather to the Greek and Roman dress of the age.[4] Two conflicting tendencies were constantly at work, and reached their climax in the middle ages. There was an anxiety to avoid articles of dress peculiar to other religions, especially when these were associated with religious practices; and there was a willingness to refrain from costume contrary to the customs of an unsympathetic land. On the one hand, there was a conservatism which is exemplified when the Jews in course of immigration took with them the characteristic dress of their former adopted home, or when they remained unmoved by the changes of the Renaissance. On the other hand, the prominent badge enforced by Pope Innocent III. in 1215 was intended to prevent Jews from being mistaken for Christians, and similarly in Mahommedan lands they were compelled to wear some distinctive indication of their sect. Thus the many quaint and interesting features of later Jewish costume have arisen from certain specific causes, any consideration of which concerns later and medieval costume generally. See I. Abrahams, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages (1896), chap. xv. sq.; and especially the Jew. Encyc., s.v. “Dress” (with numerous illustrations).
Authorities.—Much useful material will be found in popular illustrated books (especially C. J. Ball, Light from the East, London, 1899) and in the magnificent volumes on the history of ancient art by G. Perrot and C. Chipiez. On Egyptian costume see especially J. G. Wilkinson, Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians (ed. by S. Birch, 1878), and A. Erman Life in Ancient Egypt (1894, especially pp. 200–233); for Egyptian evidence, see W. M. Müller, Asien und Europa nach altägypt. Denkmäler (Leipzig, 1893), Mitteil. d. vorderasiat. Gesellschaft (1904), ii. (and elsewhere). The most important study on old Babylonian dress is that of E. Meyer, “Sumerier und Semiten in Babylonien,” in the Abhandlungen of the Berlin University (1906). For Hittite material, see the collection by L. Messerschmidt, Mitteil. d. vorderas. Ges. (1900 and 1902). For special discussions, see H. Weiss, Kostümkunde, i. (Stuttgart, 1881), articles in Dict. Bible (Hastings), Ency. Biblica, and Jewish Encyc., and I. Benzinger, Hebr. Archäologie (Tubingen, 1907), pp. 73 sqq. See also the general bibliography at the end. (S. A. C.)
 |
| From Petsofá (Annual of the Brit. School at Athens). Fig. 15.—Terra-cotta Statuette. |
 |
| Perrot et Chipiez’s Art in Primitive Greece, by permission of Chapman & Hall. Fig. 16.—Lead Statuette from Kampos. |
ii. Aegean Costume.—The discoveries made at Mycenae and other centres of “Mycenaean” civilization, and those of more recent date due to the excavations of Dr A. J. Evans and others in Crete, have shown that Hellenic culture was preceded in the Aegean by a civilization differing from it in many respects (see Aegean Civilization), and not least in costume. The essential feature both of male and female dress during the “Minoan” and “Mycenaean” periods was the loin-cloth, which is best represented by the votive terra-cotta statuettes from Petsofá in Crete discovered by Professor J. L. Myres and published in the ninth volume of the Annual of the British School at Athens (fig. 15). J. L. Myres shows that the costume consists of three parts—the loin-cloth itself, a white wrapper or kilt worn over it, and a knotted girdle which secured the whole and perhaps played its part in producing and maintaining the wasp waists characteristic of the Aegean race. The loin-cloth was the only costume (except for high boots, probably made of pale leather, since they are represented
- ↑ The relations between sacerdotal and civic authority may be seen in the vestments of the church (chasuble, alb, stole), which probably were once the official garments of magistrates.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 See articles on mourning customs in the Bible Dictionaries, and, for special studies, Büchler, Zeit. f. alttest. Wissens., 1901, pp. 81-92; M. Jastrow, ib., 1907, 117 sqq.; and in Journ. Amer. Or. Soc. xx. 133 Sqq., xxi. 23-39. For the Babylonian evidence see Zimmern, op. cit., 603. The sculptures of Sennacherib show the bare-headed and bare-footed suppliants of Lachish meanly clad before Sennacherib (Ball, p. 192, contrast the warriors with caps and helmets, ib. p. 190, and on the simple dress, cf. above).
- ↑ Ezek. xvi. xxiii.; Isa. iii. 16-iv. 1. For the hairy garb, cf. John the Baptist (Matt. iii. 4); it became the ascete’s dress. The founder of the Jacobite Church in Asia owed his surname (Burde’ānā) to his rough horse-cloth. Here may be mentioned the archaic revival in Egypt in the 8th century B.C., which also extended to the costume.
- ↑ See for details, A. Brüll, Trachten d. Juden (1873).
