Clothing
In Roman literature, clothing is rarely described as something that protected the wearer from the elements, was practical and suited for everyday wear, or had become fashionable for non-sinister reasons. Instead, clothing was imbued with powerful symbolic qualities, and was used to pass moral judgments. In Roman moral thought, clothing reflected rigid hierarchies which separated the upper classes from the masses, citizens from non-citizens, barbarians from Romans.
The Roman toga (male robe) was a garment that identified the wearer as a Roman citizen, often in conjunction with his attainment of manhood, status as a senator, or his position as a priest, orator or magistrate. Roman women demonstrated their munditia (elegance of appearance) through wearing the stola (dress) and palla (mantle), the attire of the matrona (matron). This type of clothing reflected the wearer’s moral qualities, and was intended to unite the upper classes through similarity of appearance in their public attire. Thus any alteration to traditional styles of dress, or the use of exotic fabrics and expensive dyes, was interpreted as a threat to the established political and social order. Roman magistrates and emperors often attempted to re-establish the traditional Roman status quo by reinforcing traditional dress codes.
“Those men… who wear cloaks of outlandish colours, who wear translucent togas… provoke censure, and in doing so, attract attention towards themselves.”
Seneca, Letters, 114.21
As the funerary portrait of this young man from Palmyra suggests, the Roman toga was used to demonstrate personal wealth, status and achievement attained in one’s local community, even outside Rome. The everyday Roman citizen could not afford a toga, which separated men of distinction from the ‘tunic-clad multitude’.
In this letter, Seneca criticises both the men who made vices fashionable and those who chose to imitate new trends for self-promotion. Men of good moral standing did not wear togas made from exotic fabrics.
"What shall I say about clothing? I need not you, O flounces, nor you who turn wool red with Tyrian purple. When so many cheaper colours become fashionable, what madness is it to carry one’s entire fortune on one’s body?”
Ovid, The Art of Love, 3.169-172
On this sarcophagus fragment, the Muses are dressed in garments that would have been popular with many women; Thalia, Muse of Comedy, wears a close-fitting and decorated woven tunic, with a mantle or cloak wrapped around her hips. Euterpe, Muse of Music, is dressed in a long-sleeved chiton (Greek-style tunic) with a high waist-band.
However, in Roman moralising literature, women were often censured for their love of garments made of silk or coloured with bright exotic dyes such as amethystine and Tyrian purple. The cost of these dyes, and of exotic fabrics, made them items of luxuria and the target of much Roman legislation over many centuries. Coan silk not only clung to the body, but its iridescent qualities focused attention on the wearer. Such women undermined their pudicitia (modesty and chastity).
“It was decided that vessels of solid gold should not be made for the serving of food, and that men should not disgrace themselves with silken clothing from the East.”
Tacitus, Annals, 2.33
On this memorial for a man named Secundio, his sister Philema proudly lists her occupation as a vestipica (wardrobe slave). Such slaves fulfilled important roles in wealthy households. They assisted the female members of the family with their dress and cared for the clothing of the household in general.
Vestipicae probably also managed the traditional toga, a heavy, impractical garment, as well as the more exotic clothing styles that regularly received formal censure. As Tacitus relates, in AD 16 Tiberius banned men’s Asian silk attire. In AD 85, Domitian passed a decree prohibiting the wearing of bright colours at the theatre.