Ottoman Dress and Design in the West: A Visual History of Cultural Exchange [Illustrated] 2018032609, 2018037305, 9780253042194, 9780253042156

Citation preview

Ottoman Dress & Design in the West

Ottoman Dress & Design in the West A Visual History of Cultural Exchange

Charlotte A. Jirousek with Sara Catterall

Indiana University Press

This book is a publication of Indiana University Press Office of Scholarly Publishing Herman B Wells Library 350 1320 East 10th Street Bloomington, Indiana 47405 USA iupress.indiana.edu © 2019 by Sara Catterall and Zoë Miller-Lee All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. This book is printed on acid-free paper. Manufactured in China Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Jirousek, Charlotte, author. | Catterall, Sara, author. Title: Ottoman dress and design in the West : a visual history of cultural exchange / Charlotte A. Jirousek with Sara Catterall. Description: Bloomington, Indiana, USA : Indiana University Press, 2019. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018032609 (print) | LCCN 2018037305 (ebook) | ISBN 9780253042194 (e-book) | ISBN 9780253042156 | ISBN 9780253042156q (hardback : qalk. paper) | ISBN 9780253042163q (pbk. : qalk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Clothing and dress—Turkey—History. | Fashion—Turkey—History. | Europe—Civilization—Turkish influences. Classification: LCC GT1400 (ebook) | LCC GT1400 .J57 2019 (print) | DDC 391.009561—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018032609 1 2 3 4 5

23 22 21 20 19

Contents Foreword: The World-Historical Importance of the Ottoman Empire vii Douglas A. Howard

Preface: Perspectives

xi

Acknowledgments xvii Sara Catterall

Timeline

xix

1

Before the Ottoman Era, East and West

2

The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries 41

3

The Sixteenth Century

Emergence of the Ottomans

79

Reaching for the East

4

The Seventeenth Century 109 Shifting Power, Emerging Modernities

5

The Eighteenth Century 146 An Expanding World

6

The Nineteenth Century

186

Empires Bloom and Fade

Postscript

216

The Decline of Empire and the Rise of Globalism

Glossary 225 Index

229

1

Foreword The World-Historical Importance of the Ottoman Empire Douglas A. Howard

Histories of Europe have often looked like selfies, with the Ottoman Empire photoshopped out of the picture. How would European history be different with the Ottomans restored to the frame? This beautiful book offers a sense of what that picture might look like, seen through the lens of the evolution of dress and clothing. In physical geography Europe is more or less a peninsula, the northwestern region of the great Afro-Eurasian land mass, bounded by the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Mediterranean Sea. Before modern times a person might travel overland, by foot or cart or pack animal, benefitting from the occasional bridge or river barge, all the way from the Cape of Good Hope to Lisbon or Amsterdam or Venice in one direction and Delhi or Busan or Hangzou in the other. And when in the 1860s the Suez Canal was dug, it was Africa—not Europe—that was cut off from the rest. For hundreds of years, about one-third of this European peninsula was the Ottoman Empire. What was the Ottoman Empire that was so prominently a part of Europe and is the focus of this book? In simplest terms, it was the part of the world governed by the Ottoman dynasty, not just in Europe but also partly in southwestern Asia and, after 1517, in northern Africa. Of several major Afro-Eurasian empires of the early modern age—the Mamluk, the Safavid, the Mughal, the Ming, the Habsburg, the Romanov—the Ottoman Empire proved to be the most durable. The dynasty’s rule began around the year 1300 and lasted through the uniquely modern violence of World War  I, much of which it perpetrated. It only ended in 1922, when the last sultan was dethroned by act of the national assembly of what was soon to be the Republic of Turkey. What made the empire so successful for so long is more difficult to explain but, for ease of discussion, we might point to three interrelated factors. One factor was a stable political structure created by the sultans of the Ottoman dynasty. A second factor was a rich and variegated Ottoman culture, emanating from a worldview that valued the human encounter vii

with God, especially as experienced in pain and loss. A third factor was a fiscal model to adequately manage and encourage prosperity. Unsurprisingly, all of these evolved with time, none remaining quite the same over the empire’s six centuries of rule, and so perhaps the most remarkable feature of Ottoman history is the survival of the dynasty and its empire through centuries of sometimes dramatic change. The Ottoman dynasty arose in the conditions of the early modern age or, as some would prefer to state, the late agrarian age. This was an age in which, while the great majority of the human global population was occupied full-time with settled agriculture, the most powerful kingdoms were built by originally seminomadic dynasties, mostly Turkic or Mongol, that recognized the great vitality of long-distance commerce both by land and by sea. With the Ottoman dynasty, as with the Safavid and the Mughal, all Turkic, sovereignty originated in bonds between a charismatic warrior hero (the sultan) and an equally charismatic saintly Sufi sheikh. Together, their worldly and otherworldly power infused Ottoman success. After the conquest of Constantinople, or Istanbul (1453), the sultan’s public persona shifted, becoming more regal and remote. With Süleyman the Magnificent (1520–66) and his successors, the sultans and family members increasingly sought seclusion in the garden palace of Topkapı. The sultan’s extended household governed the empire as his servants and thought of the subjects as the sultan’s flock, which depended on their protection to flourish. The flock included those who were not Muslim—Jews and Christians had always made up at least half of the entire population of the empire, and there was no expectation that they should adopt Islam. Indeed the Christian church hierarchy particularly was dependent on, and in some ways even replicated, the imperial aura among its own communities. The Ottoman sultans’ two main international rivals, the shahs of the Safavid dynasty of Iran (founded 1501) and the emperors of the Mughal dynasty of India (founded 1526), collapsed almost simultaneously in the early 1700s and with them the traditional linkage of political-spiritual charismatic monarchy. The Ottoman Empire withstood these upheavals. Not that the sultans were any less respected than before, but internal and external developments brought a growing emphasis on the empire as a territorial realm. The sultan, seen more and more as the defender of the religion of Islam and of Muslims, developed a new image as an unassailable autocrat leading the empire into modernity. Again the Ottomans were not alone in this, as their new rivals—Europeans now, the Russian Romanovs and the Austrian Habsburgs—exerted a similar royal persona. The territory of the Ottoman realm shrank steadily in size throughout this time. As a result of the separation of Christian populations into independent kingdoms and the arrival of Muslims who fled or were expelled and forced to migrate from these same newly minted Christian kingdoms, the population of the Ottoman Empire shifted in balance, so that by the time of the first true census (1880s) the empire’s population was nearly three-fourths Muslims.

viii

Foreword

At the core of the empire’s culture was the mystical experience of God, seen paradoxically in the universal human experience of irretrievable loss. The direct experience of God was something talked about, something longed for and actively sought; it was respected and institutionalized in Sufi dervish orders, and it drove cultural production in architecture, calligraphy, music, and literature, especially epic and lyric poetry. Sufi lodges were important academies of higher learning in the sciences and humanities, and the masters of the main Sufi orders were significant public figures. However, Sufi orders were neither the sole interpretation of Islam within the empire’s population nor the only institutionalized avenues through which an education could be obtained or popular spirituality expressed. Mystical Islam had parallels both in Ottoman Christianity, especially in the Orthodox Hesychast movement, and in Kabbalistic Judaism. Repeated challenges to the authority of the Ottoman dynasty arose from within Sufi movements. One of these, the Kizilbaş movement, was particularly compromising because of its affiliation with the Safavid shahs of Iran. A growing reactionary movement clamored to define an acceptable fusion of Ottoman loyalty and Sunni Islam, giving the opening to popular preachers of a more narrow and moralizing orthodoxy. After 1800, Ottoman religious culture degenerated into Sunni chauvinism that drove violence first in a purge of Bektashis and Kizilbaş (or Alevis, 1826) and then increasingly in pogroms against Greek and Armenian Christians (especially in the 1890s). The political and cultural evolution described above implied a similar evolution in the empire’s fiscal model, since any such model arises from definitions of prosperity. Ottoman fiscal flexibility and resiliency are a major factor in accounting for the empire’s lengthy survival. Besides plunder won in successful wars, early efforts were made to organize direct government collection of taxes on agriculture and trade. Early modern limitations of communication and transportation meant that the results of these efforts were mixed, and eventually the empire relied more on revenue contracting. At the same time, the endowed trust evolved into a powerful instrument of investment and development. These fiscal practices brought long periods of prosperity despite the ups and downs of military victory and defeat and were not really found wanting until competition arose from joint-stock companies with government backing in the countries along the North Sea and the Atlantic Ocean and Russian military power threatened at the same time. After 1840, the sultans acquiesced to pressure and began the Ottoman integration into the emerging global capitalist system, but inability to make this transition quickly enough cost the empire significant losses both militarily and financially. As this book shows, throughout these centuries there was a constant, back-and-forth mutual interest and influence between the Ottoman Empire and the parts of Europe north and west of its borders. This history is also not easy to characterize simply. Despite mutual suspicion and mutual religious and ideological put-downs, there was also mutual respect and even wary appreciation. Science and ideas as well as technology crossed

Foreword

ix

through porous boundaries with spies, renegades, slaves, merchants, and missionaries. Trading partnerships and political alliances were long lasting. The Italian commercial states, especially in Venice, had the first and most extensive personal experience of people from the Ottoman lands. Ottoman control of the roads, ports, and sea-lanes to India—all of them— whether via the eastern Mediterranean alternatives (Egypt and the Red Sea or Syria and Iraq and the Persian Gulf) or even via the Black Sea and central Eurasia, meant that for European merchants breaking into the Indian Ocean commerce was dauntingly expensive. Nevertheless, even while sailors from northwestern Europe were exploring alternate global routes (by way of the Atlantic Ocean!), French, English, and Dutch Levant companies were granted crown monopolies to trade in the Ottoman lands in the 1500s and 1600s. Such monopolies gave people from these countries on the fringe of Afro-Eurasia more routine contact, if not with Ottomans, at least with Ottoman goods, especially textiles, including clothing. In the work that follows, Charlotte Jirousek explores this contact through the Ottoman influence on visual culture, particularly in the fields of dress and fashion. Jirousek shows how the Ottoman influence can be traced as a consistent theme through the centuries, and in doing so she deepens our understanding of how cultures interact. Jirousek was uniquely suited for this task, as she was not only the curator of Cornell University’s Costume and Textile Collection, but she also spent years teaching about the history, aesthetics, and meaning of dress. She conducted extensive primary research on the history of Ottoman textile technologies, trade, and dress. This book is the fruit of over fifteen years of careful, insightful, and respectful work. It was nearing its completion when Jirousek died unexpectedly in 2014. We are fortunate indeed that her work survives to influence future generations of students and scholars.

Douglas A. Howard is Professor of History at Calvin College. He is author of The History of Turkey and A History of the Ottoman Empire.

x

Foreword

Preface Perspectives

In 1959 I made my first visit to the Middle East. It was a revelation. At twenty, setting out on a summer student trip from my private college in Minneapolis, I naively thought I had a good education and that I had prepared myself with a year of language and contemporary area study. Once I arrived in Istanbul, however, I soon discovered a world I had never imagined. Here was a magnificent culture that had confronted and influenced European politics and culture for centuries, yet I had no idea of its scope. And when I returned home, I found that no one I knew had the slightest knowledge of what seemed to me a monumental oversight in our understanding of world history. I have since learned that this oversight is a particular deficit among Americans. Europeans, on whose doorstep the Ottoman Empire once stood, are more aware of its significance in their history. However, this presence is often still treated as more peripheral than obvious, a minor relic of the past. However, in view of the continuing centrality of Middle Eastern affairs in world politics, I wonder at the general lack of curiosity about just who these people are, and have been, and how our current relationships evolved. As my career moved me toward the study of dress history, I found this Eurocentric (or Euro-American-centric) myopia even more pronounced than it was in other areas of history and material culture studies. The writings of historian Fernand Braudel, particularly his groundbreaking work The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Phillip II, introduced me to a new way to consider the interrelationship of events. Braudel’s monumental books reframe the way in which European economic and social history can be considered in a broader framework of environmental and geographic realities, rather than in the conventional terms of national boundaries. As he wrote: The question of boundaries is the first to be encountered; from it all others flow. To draw a boundary around anything is to define, analyze, and reconstruct it, in this case select, indeed adopt, a philosophy of history. xi

I hope too . . . that I shall not be reproached for my excessive ambitions, for my desire and need to see on a grand scale. It will perhaps prove that history can do more than study walled gardens. If it were otherwise, it would surely be failing in one of its most immediate tasks which must be to relate to the painful problems of our times.1

The study of the history of textiles and dress is often conducted inside the Western walled garden. This is a justifiable device for setting limits to a topic, but valuable insights may be lost when these walls are put in place. There has long been a Western discomfort with the interface between the worlds of Islam and Christendom. In the literature on the history of dress and design, much more attention has been paid to the Far East as a source of design ideas. There is no doubt that China and Japan have been of great importance to the recent history of Western art and design. However, contact with the Islamic Near East is of longer standing and has been a more constant presence in the history of Western cultural exchanges. Yet many historians manage to write as if European culture has no roots that reach east of the Aegean. For example, I found the following rather amazing paragraph in the introduction to an Atlas of Modern History (please note the title is not The Atlas of European Modern History) that covers the period from 1483 to 1815: The emphasis on Europe needs no justification. The period was one in which Europeans came to dominate first the high seas, then much of the land area of the globe. They all but eliminated two primitive peoples, the Siberians and Amerindians, and seized their lands. They conquered India and Indonesia. Only the Africans, protected by their poverty and diseases, and the East Asians, still at this stage strong enough to exclude all foreigners, maintained their political integrity. . . . The growth of European power is obviously the most significant event of the period.2

This little atlas is a general work, intended to serve a broad audience, which is precisely what concerns me. I assume most serious European historians know better, but what is the vision of history offered to the rest of us? Apart from the unfortunate enthusiasm for conquest and destruction as the measure of historical success, this statement in a purported atlas of the modern world does not even mention the Ottoman Empire. Nor is it mentioned anywhere else in the introduction, despite the fact that throughout this period the Ottoman Empire was a primary adversary of Europe and held a substantial foothold there. Yet . . . the editors chose for the cover of this atlas a painting that shows Napoleon Bonaparte and his armies at the Capitulation of Ulm, in costumes that reek of Ottoman Orientalist detail. The emperor’s horse is even held by a groom in Ottoman dress. The maps that follow, and the text descriptions of them, feature a continually shifting Ottoman frontier that by the sixteenth century reaches into the heart of Europe. In short: the visual evidence emphasizes what the editor chose not to mention. So why is the Ottoman world excluded from the catalogue of conquests quoted above? Because it spoils the story. The Ottoman Empire in 1815, xii

Preface

while not the fearsome power it had been a century or two earlier, was still a vast empire that was not subject to any European power and was an impediment of long standing to European territorial and mercantile ambitions. To a large extent, what remained of that impediment would be overcome or circumvented in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but the fact remains that the West never really conquered the Turks. Though the European powers would contribute to the demise of the Ottoman Empire, they managed this in the midst of a defeat that would give birth to a new Turkish republic, and at the expense of Christian populations who had looked to the West for support—a defeat that brought about the fall of a British government. This embarrassingly intractable quality of the Turkish presence in European history has led to a sort of uncomfortable silence, in which European history, and sometimes even Middle Eastern history, may be presented as if there were no Ottoman elephant in the room. If Muslims must be mentioned, they are more likely to be presented as Arabs or Moors, perhaps because European ambitions were more successful against them. The region that comprises modern Turkey is often referred to in euphemisms, such as Asia Minor, Anatolia, or more generally, the Levant. Many scholars have offered a more balanced picture in recent years. The emergence of the history of the Mediterranean as a field of study recognizes that the nations surrounding that body of water have always shared a common experience. It is my goal to examine the evolution of dress in this broader frame of reference. Dress is an expression of time and place as well as individual taste. It is a visual demonstration of values that may not always be expressed in words. In the literature of dress history, there have been anecdotal and episodic acknowledgments of cultural exchange in the Mediterranean world by a number of authors. In this book, I intend to provide a coherent image of the ongoing relationship between West and Near East, mapped in the visual culture of dress as it reflects political, economic, and social relationships that have existed since the beginning of the Ottoman Empire and indeed since the beginning of the Islamic era.

Among those outside the field, dress is most often thought of in terms of aesthetics and generally dismissed as an inconsequential expression of ephemeral fashion and vanity. But dress is an especially useful vehicle for the examination of crosscultural exchanges, since dress—and textiles—involve economic, cultural, historic, and political patterns of behavior. Textiles and dress have always been an important component of international trade, and the Middle East was long a center of textile production as well as the primary conduit for the trade between Europe and Asia. It is my hope that this book provides a window into the broader subject of the history of relations between the Islamic Near East and the West through a story told at the more personal and intimate level of human behavior, in the interdisciplinary and visual language of dress. Preface

Dress, Fashion, and History

xiii

I would like to show that the region of the world now mostly held by modern Turkey has always been intimately connected to all these aspects of Euro-American history. To achieve this, I find it essential to incorporate some other Muslim relations to European culture arising from Moorish, Persian, and Arab sources. I also acknowledge certain influences that derived from India, China, Japan, and other places, particularly from the eighteenth century onward. Nonetheless, since I primarily consider the period from the thirteenth century to the early twentieth century, Turks, particularly the Ottoman Turks, are the most important element in this story. This book deals with both traditional modes of dress and fashionable dress. A fashion system of dress appears to have begun to take shape in the wealthy courts of Burgundy and Italy in the fifteenth century. A full-blown fashion system was in place in France by the end of the seventeenth century. According to Alan Hunt, fashion is based in a production and consumption system in which both producer and consumer view frequent change as a defining factor. This search for newness in the forms of dress, he asserts, is not to be taken lightly: “While commonsense responses to the phenomenon of fashion often tend to view it as volatile and unstable, marked by idiosyncratic vagaries and irrational fads . . . despite its superficially erratic features its true significance only emerges when it is perceived that it is a classically ‘social’ phenomenon. Fashion exhibits longterm trends . . . that are not amenable to explanation pitched at the level of individual choice.”3 This being the case, dress and fashion can serve as significant documents of changes that occur through history, reflecting the evolution of society and its values. At the same time, an understanding of dress, fashionable or otherwise, also requires a general understanding of the historical currents that give rise to fashionable dress. Fashion is a significant and visible object of consumption and reflects the mechanisms of demand and supply. It also reflects events, cultural exchanges, and values in the context of economic and social events. Therefore, much of this book explores the contextual evidence that can explain why certain exotic elements appear in fashion when they do. From the late medieval period to the present, the rate of change in dress has gradually accelerated from the slow and subtle alterations typical of traditional dress to the rapid pace characteristic of mass fashion system dress. Jean Hamilton has suggested that the transition to a mass fashion system cannot occur without a specific set of economic conditions: “There is no such thing as mass fashion without a mass manufacturing system, one with the capacity to produce and distribute goods to a viable consuming population with a willingness and ability to participate in it . . . there is no such thing as fashion marketing without . . . the expectation of relatively rapidly replaced style changes, accepted by most people for a limited time. Mass fashion, therefore, requires . . . effective means of large-scale production, distribution, and communication.”4 Once a fashion system is in operation, there is pressure to continually renew the forms of dress. The hunxiv

Preface

ger for the new demands a wider range of sources for new fashion ideas. The exotic was viewed with suspicion and disapproval when pre-fashion traditional dress dominated world cultures but has been embraced in the fashionable search for novelty ever since. While some of this exoticism might involve mining the aesthetics of nearer European neighbors or nostalgia for one’s own history, the distant, alien cultures of the Near East and later the Far East became a standard resource for invention as time went on. Differences in the rate of this change from traditional to mass fashion dress between Europe and the Muslim world have as much to do with economic issues as with anything else.

The subject of this book could be described as falling within the field of Orientalist studies. The large body of Orientalist literature for the most part explores literature, fine arts, and architecture but usually ignores textiles and dress. The term “Orientalist” apparently dates to the seventeenth century, when the colonial adventures of the European powers led to a new intellectual interest in the East, and a fashion for things Oriental first became widespread. Initially the term referred to the study of the artifacts and culture of Moghul and Hindu India, but later it was expanded to include the Islamic Near East. In due course, the evolution of tastes and events expanded the term to include the Far East, particularly China, in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.5 Over time, “Orientalist studies” came to encompass the study of virtually any Asian culture, living or dead. Even the classical cultures of Greece and Rome were included, in view of the fact that much of the archaeological remains of these empires were by then under Islamic rule. Substantial direct trade with China began to bring chinoiserie into the cultural vocabulary of the West by the eighteenth century. Only after Admiral Perry forced Japan to open its ports to trade in 1853 were Japanese artifacts available in sufficient quantities to have a substantial impact on Western fashions. However, the Ottoman world of the eastern Mediterranean was the most consistent “Oriental” presence in European consciousness from the time of the Crusades through the nineteenth century. This term has become controversial since the publication of Edward Said’s Orientalism in 1978. There has been an extensive debate regarding the implications of this concept. Said suggested that Orientalism was the imposition of stereotypic interpretations on “Oriental” culture by Europeans for the purpose of justifying and extending their exploitation through colonial rule. The stereotypic and even racist quality of many Orientalist affectations is undeniable, but the imperialist motivations of Orientalist thinkers are less clear. It is not my intention to repeat that debate here; however, I must side with those who suggest that the motivations of Orientalists in any given period were far from unified and that the character and subject matter of Orientalism has varied with time. Orientalism had its adherents in all the arts and humanities, and their motivations ranged from conservative, paternalistic, disparaging attitudes to radical denials of Preface

The Orientalist Mode

xv

their parent European cultures in favor of some or all aspects of the “Oriental” culture, accurately perceived or not. The only way to make sense of the immense diversity of Orientalist motives and approaches is to look at them in the context of contemporaneous events and attitudes, as I will attempt to do throughout this study. I will focus primarily on one cultural artifact, dress, in relation to one region, the Islamic Middle East, during the Ottoman era of the mid-fourteenth century to the early twentieth century, for the most part leaving the rest of the Orientalist canon for others to explore. Where possible and sensible, I will attempt to distinguish between Arab, Turkish, and other ethnic distinctions within the Islamic world as they came to bear on Western tastes. And I will expect the reader to be able to place this focused account of the Muslim presence in European dress and culture in the appropriate context of the vast panorama of other historical influences, resources, and native European invention. In the twentieth century, the globalized world became our new cultural reality. The United States is now home to a small but rapidly growing Muslim population, and by the time we reach the middle of this century, people of European descent will no longer be the majority in this country. It is time to come to terms with the fact that global connections have always been strands in the world’s web. We can acknowledge and embrace the multiplicity of elements that has contributed to what we in the West think of as “our” cultural history. This book would not have been possible without the advice and contributions of many people. I would especially like to acknowledge the encouragement, suggestions, and examples provided by Susan Greene, who was probably the first to hear or read any part of this book. Beth Davis was particularly helpful in bringing me to a fuller understanding of the place of fashion in the seventeenth century. Patricia Warner introduced me to some of the controversies surrounding exotic dress in the eighteenth century. Finally, my thanks to my daughters, Sara Miller Catterall and Zoë Miller-Lee, who have provided support and encouragement during this very long undertaking.

Notes

1. Fernand Braudel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, vol. 1, preface to the first edition (New York: Harper & Row, 1972/1996), 18, 21. 2. Colin McEvedy, The Penguin Atlas of Modern History (to 1815) (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1986), 2. 3. Alan Hunt, Governance of the Consuming Passions: A History of Sumptuary Law (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1996), 44. 4. Jean Hamilton, “Silkworms of the East Must Be Pillaged: The Cultural Foundations of Mass Fashion,” Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 8, no. 4 (Summer 1990): 45. 5. John MacKenzie, Orientalism: History, Theory and the Arts (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995).

xvi

Preface

Acknowledgments

This book took over a decade of research and writing for my mother to complete. She talked about it to me the whole time, as she worked through her ideas and made new discoveries. In 2014, not long after she began to look for a publisher, she died unexpectedly. I felt I had to pick up the manuscript and see it through. I am very grateful to Jennika Baines of Indiana University Press for her enthusiastic support of this publication. Thanks also to Kate Schramm and Rachel Rosolina of Indiana University Press and to Naomi Linzer of J. Naomi Linzer Indexing Services. I would like to thank the Turkish Cultural Foundation for its generous grant, the Turkish Cultural Foundation Fellowship in Turkish Culture and Art, toward the cost of securing permission to use the many images published in this book. The contents of this book are the sole responsibility of the author and do not reflect the views of the Turkish Cultural Foundation. Nor did the foundation have any influence on the content of this book. Special thanks to Carol Lamotte for her generous and patient help with tracking down image permissions in Turkey. Thanks also to Marlene Breu, Susan Greene, and the many other collaborators, Cornell staff, peers, friends, students, and family of Charlotte Jirousek, who contributed encouragement, advice, and donations to this project. I could not have done this without you, and I thank you on her behalf as well.

Sara Catterall

Ithaca, New York, 2017

xvii

Timeline

6th century CE

First definite mention of Turks in the written record

622

Founding of Islam

1071

Seljuk Turkish defeat of the Byzantines at Manzikert

1096–99

First Crusade

1137–93

Life of Saladin (Salah al-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub)

1140

First attempts to form centers for Islamic studies in France

1243–58

Mongol conquest of the Seljuk Empire

1271–72

Last (Ninth) Crusade

1440

Invention of the Gutenberg printing press, allowing mass distribution of books and images

1453

Fall of Byzantium to Mehmed the Conqueror, and the end of the Hundred Years’ War

1475

Ottomans achieve control of Mediterranean trade routes

1492

Moors and Jews driven from Spain, many Sephardic Jews move to Constantinople

1516–17

Ottomans conquer the Mamluks

1520

Suleyman the Magnificent (the Lawgiver) becomes sultan; beginning of the Ottoman Golden Age

1529

First Ottoman siege of Vienna

1532

Renewed Ottoman campaign against Vienna

1571

Battle of Lepanto

1579–80

English trade treaty negotiated with the Ottoman Empire

xix

xx

1579

English Levant Company established

1642–49

English Civil War

1672

Le Mercure Galant, the first publication to show seasonal fashions, begins publication

1683

Battle of Vienna

1699

Treaty of Karlowitz

1669

Ottoman embassy of Müteferrika Süleyman Ağa to the court of Louis XIV

1703–30

Reign of Sultan Ahmed III, known as “the tulip era”

1720–21

First full diplomatic embassy from the Ottomans to a non-Muslim court (the French)

1741

Second embassy of the Ottomans to the French

1789

French Revolution begins

1798

Invasion of Egypt by Napoleon

1826

Adoption of European-style garments as bureaucratic dress by Mahmud II

1838

Coronation of Queen Victoria

1841

Britain allows exports of textile machinery

1873

Ottoman participation in the Vienna World Fair

1881–82

Egyptian uprising and British occupation of Egypt

1923

Treaty of Lausanne; Republic of Turkey established

Timeline

Ottoman Dress & Design in the West

1

Before the Ottoman Era, East and West

As the Western Roman Empire declined and fell in the fifth century CE, the political and cultural center of gravity in the Mediterranean world shifted east to Byzantium. There classical forms of aesthetics as well as social and political structure came under the influence of older Eastern modes. The distinctions between East and West became more profound, particularly between Northern Europe and the Byzantine world. Then the Byzantine Empire was confronted by the emergence of Islam from Arabia. Within a century of its founding in 622, this new faith had profoundly altered the religion, language, writing, and social order of the eastern Mediterranean world. These changes essentially severed most contact between Europe and the southeast Mediterranean for several centuries. They became as separate as they would ever be again. The central topic here is dress, the significance of which can only be understood in the context of political, economic, and cultural landmarks that account for how and why changes in dress occur. Before we begin to look at those factors, we should examine how dress reflects the conditions and influences of a given place and time and establish basic definitions of the distinctive forms of dress that existed at the beginning of the Islamic era. Despite all the changes that followed, these distinctions would continue to have force for centuries to come.

Described as the most personal component of our made environment, clothing and the aesthetics of dress are very much tied to practical elements such as climate, economy, the availability of materials and technologies, and whether goods are manufactured locally or made available through trade. More importantly, dress reflects concepts of self and one’s relation to community, religious beliefs, and the social order. All of these elements contribute to a shared sense of propriety and identity that is expressed through dress. As a result, people tend to develop strong feelings about

Dress, Culture, and Change

1

appropriate dress in general and about their own dress in particular. Dress is the representation of self to community. The idea of fashion is a modern one that describes a system of dress in which fairly rapid change occurs. These changes happen in an environment in which a substantial portion of the population has the means to buy goods that they do not strictly need and that are reliably available.1 Although the beginnings of a fashion system were evident as early as the fourteenth century, a true fashion system did not come into being until the late seventeenth century. In contrast, a traditional dress system describes the clothing worn by members of a particular group defined by geography, ethnicity, gender, status, and community. Traditional dress tends to remain much the same within a particular community over fairly long periods of time.2 For the most part, medieval European dress meets the definition of traditional dress. As long as societies remain relatively consistent in form and relatively isolated from other societies, we can expect their fundamental clothing forms to change very slowly. People adjust to gradual changes in their community and its values as they become familiar with new materials and aesthetics through trade and contact with outsiders. Existing forms of dress may first incorporate borrowed materials, and then later, new forms. These new forms are eventually absorbed and adapted to the locality’s traditional aesthetic through the process of cultural authentication.3 Alan Hunt points out that a significant distinguishing characteristic of traditional dress is the lack of gender differentiation in the cut of basic male and female garments, even though gender is expressed through the use of accessories, materials, and colors. This characteristic contrasts with the extremely gender-specific garment cut characteristic of later mass fashion dress.4 A gradual shift toward a mass fashion system occurred from the late fourteenth century to the seventeenth century as can be seen in the gender distinctions that slowly appeared in European clothing construction. Prior to the emergence of a mass fashion system, European dress was quite gender neutral in form, with tunics and draped mantles as the basic forms worn by both men and women in rural and urban environments as late as the mid-fourteenth century.5 Gender-neutral forms also characterized the traditional Muslim dress matrix, whether Arab or Turkish, although certain distinguishing materials and accessories and their arrangement were used to mark gender and status. Gender differentiation in construction came more gradually and much later to the Ottoman world, for reasons that will be discussed later. As the fashion system began to take form, a marked “sexual dimorphism” emerged in European dress.6 The forms of clothing took on very gender-specific characteristics. Because different circumstances drove choice in dress in the Islamic world, the lure of fashion was resisted longer there than in the West. However, by the seventeenth century some evidence of gender differentiation in garment forms began to emerge in Ottoman court dress, whereas significant gender differentiation in Ottoman Turkish 2

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

dress would not appear until the eighteenth century. This transition from gender-neutral to gender-specific forms seems to have appeared with the emergence of mass fashion system dress wherever it has occurred. The fashion system is unquestionably a commercial system, however many other ways we choose to conceptualize it. The goal of those who manufacture and trade in the goods of fashion is to sell as much of their products as possible to consumers. The world seems to have discovered quite early on that selling gender-differentiated allure was an effective way to increase profits. As long as contact with the wider world is limited, the rate of change is likely to be slow and cautious. There also seems to be a progression in the manner and degree of adoption of new materials and forms over time. As a society encounters outside cultures and new goods, people might first adopt materials such as textiles or other objects suitable for utilitarian purposes or interior furnishings in a subtle experimentation with exotica in the personal environment. For example, while in the sixteenth century Ottoman dress remained very much as it had always been, there was an interest in Western artifacts such as elaborate clocks. There was also a growing market among Ottoman elites for first Italian and later French patterned silk textiles. The more intimate use of strange new options for personal attire would occur later, as the exotic became more familiar. At first, it would be comfortable to make only superficial alterations in accessories or in the surface design, colors, and textures of one’s clothing. Imported materials would be arranged in familiar forms that did not make radical changes to what was considered proper for dress. The cut of clothing would be altered only very slowly and would tend to occur as shifts in relative power and prestige became apparent, validating the outsiders and their appearance. Thus, changes in materials are likely to occur as the first evidence of new influences in dress; only later, and usually quite gradually, will significant changes in form become discernable. When more rapid and substantial changes in forms of dress do occur, they usually reflect equivalent major alterations in society, as will be seen. In order to make sense of what is to follow, it will be useful to begin by describing the basic forms and materials that characterized European and Islamic dress before the Crusades.

The body under the clothes was the crucial revelation of medieval European dress. An increasingly close-fitted upper body silhouette began to emerge by the ninth century, first for men and then more slowly for women. For men, this body display included the contours of the legs, but a woman’s lower body was always swathed in skirts. This mode of body presentation would evolve toward increasingly structured forms of clothing that could achieve a better fit. In classical times, Northern European dress differed from Roman dress in various ways, but an important feature was the more closely wrapped Before the Ottoman Era, East and West

The Fundamentals of European Dress

3

shapes needed to protect wearers from the colder climate. In the later Roman era some of these features were absorbed into Roman dress, as Celtic and Germanic tribesmen began to affect Roman life more directly and the empire expanded north. In turn, those in Northern Europe adopted Roman forms. By the tenth century European dress featured tunics, an element they shared with Roman dress, comprised of upper body garments with sewn seams, pulled over the head and bound to the body to reduce drafts and provide maximum protection. Combined with breeches (bracchae) and tubular hose, these garments were not in the classical Roman repertoire but were adopted by the Romans from the Franks.7 Frankish breeches were usually bound or laced to achieve a relatively close fit. Over these garments, both genders wore simple capes, mantles, and hoods, although except for travel and protection from the elements, men usually went bareheaded.8 Women wore longer versions of the male tunic, with head-covering veils or shawls. The tunic might be belted to the body and layered with a shorter overtunic. Before the tenth century, these forms were quite modest and fairly simple, generally of wool or linen. As access to luxury goods increased, the complexity of European dress also increased. A closer fit was accomplished by lacing or binding the garment to the body. The skirt of the garment became fuller but was still shorter for men. In male dress, the legs were an important part of the silhouette, hosed, laced, and well defined. Gallic interest in the well-displayed leg and foot was evident in the variety of decorative wrappings and colors of hose, finishing in elegant footwear.9 This, then, was the European dress aesthetic just before the time of the Crusades (see fig. 1.1). By the twelfth century, following the renewed East-West contact initiated by the First Crusade, new materials and forms appeared. The garments developed a more relaxed look with soft fabrics that draped, falling closer to the body. Garments for both men and women of rank tended to be long and sleeves generally had a close fit. The modest length of garments for both genders has been described as a result of the piousness of this era of the early Crusades. It may also reflect the forms of dress encountered in the Arab world during this period, which also resembled the classical dress seen in Roman images found in the Holy Land and elsewhere (see fig. 1.2). This appearance reflected the growing availability of new luxury materials from the East. The indigenous textile materials available for clothing in Europe were wool and linen. Silk was the luxury import, destined for an elite few at this time, but cotton would soon reach a wider market, both as pure cotton cloth and also as fustian, a blend of cotton weft and linen warp, or perhaps cotton with a wool or silk warp. Although cotton was grown in Italy by the thirteenth century, the supply was insufficient to support the growing European cotton weaving industry. Raw cotton was imported from the Middle East by the northern Italian weavers, and for most of Europe cotton remained a luxury product.10 Silk was also acquired through Middle Eastern markets, sometimes originating there, but also coming from farther east in Persia and beyond. 4

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure 1.1. Radegonde est amenée devant Clothaire. Radegonde en prière from Vie de Sainte Radegonde, Fortunat (Venance), 530–601. Bibliothèque municipale de Poitiers. This image depicts the major characteristics of medieval European dress: gowns and overgowns drawn on over the head with narrow hose for men.

Right, Figure 1.2. The western entrance to Chartres Cathedral, known as the Royal Portal, 1145. Accessed February 2, 2017. https://commons. wikimedia.org/wiki/File: Chartres2006_076.jpg. These figures have been identified as biblical royalty; it has been suggested that they also stand for the living kings and queens of the period. The long, soft drape of their clothing is evidence of the finer fabrics available through imports. The woman’s gown is belted above and below her fashionably round belly to reveal the shape of her body. Below, Figure 1.3. Weftpatterned brocaded silk from Lucca in northern Italy, 13th century. Musée des Tissus et des Arts décoratifs de Lyon. Prior to this period, no patterned silks were woven in Christian Europe.

Accounts by Crusaders and others report that the luxurious silk textiles of the Islamic lands were among the many precious goods admired by Europeans, sought as loot and as trade goods, and included in royal exchanges of gifts.11 Silk cloth in general, especially pattern-woven silk, was still rare in Europe. The only patterned silk cloth available in Europe until the thirteenth century was produced in Moorish Spain and Sicily. Moorish Spain was producing silk textiles by the ninth century. After the Christian conquest of Sicily under King Roger II, a silk workshop was established in 1147 using Byzantine and Arab craftsmen. However, by the thirteenth century, silk weaving workshops were established in northern Italy (see fig. 1.3).12 The French would not attempt serious silk production until the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Although sericulture was later attempted, Europe would never be able to produce enough silk to meet its needs because of poor climate conditions. Silk would remain a precious imported commodity until the present day.

The aesthetic of Middle Eastern dress in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was substantially different from that of Europe, in spite of a few common elements that derived from earlier Roman dress. Two different modes of dress could be seen in this region, with various degrees of overlap and blending. Although there were many different ethnic groups and three major religious divisions—Muslim, Christian, and Jewish—the dominant cultural character was either Arab or Turkish, at least in terms of the basic forms of dress, due to the political and religious dominance of one or the other of these two cultures throughout the region after the seventh century. Arab culture was the foundation of Islamic culture, and Arab dominance in the southeastern Mediterranean and North Africa was and is apparent in dress as in many other aspects of life. Turkish political dominance of much of the northeastern Mediterranean lands from the eleventh century onward (the first Seljuk Empire) left its mark in these regions particularly, although some features of Ottoman dress were also eventually adopted in the rest of what would become the Ottoman Empire after the fourteenth century. Iranian dress also shares with Turkish dress some of the same historic roots in early nomadic Central Asian life, and so shares some of the same features, with differences in detail. In general, Jewish dress tended to follow the forms common to the region where the community lived, with distinguishing exceptions of detail that conformed to either religious precepts or local law.13

The Fundamentals of Middle Eastern Dress

Arab dress forms emerged in the hot climate of the southeastern Mediterranean. Bruce Ingham suggests that historically Arab dress and identity are most clearly defined as that of the Bedouin, as we know the traditionally nomadic Arabs of the deserts, differentiating them from more urban in-

Arab Dress

Before the Ottoman Era, East and West

7

Figure 1.4. Wearing an ih. rām to perform Umrah in the Grand Mosque in Makkah, Saudi Arabia, by Rammaum, June 29, 2007, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Accessed February 7, 2017. https://commons.wikimedia .org/wiki/File:Ihram_for _umrah.JPG. The ih. rām are unseamed garments still worn by Muslims during the pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina.

habitants of the Arab-speaking states, most of which have come into existence as nations in the past century.14 The earliest forms of Arab dress, worn before the Muslim era, were unseamed garments, the izâr and ridâ´. The former is wrapped around the waist, and the latter is draped over the upper body. However, in the courts and settled oases Arabs adopted the more structured garments of the higher civilizations around them, be they Parthians, Persians, Greeks, or Romans. The unseamed izâr and ridâ´ continued in use into the Muslim era, however. Ibn Khaldun, the great Arab traveler and chronicler of the fourteenth century, described them as the dress of the desert nomad, as opposed to the seamed garments worn by settled people.15 These simple garments have survived to this day as the consecrated dress known as ih.rām required for the pilgrimage to Mecca (see fig. 1.4). In the thirteenth century, the French chronicler Jean de Joinville provided a description of nomadic Bedouin dress in eastern Egypt that included “a great hairy mantle that covers the whole of the body, including the legs and feet . . . used as an outer garment and wrapper for sleep.” He also reported that “nearly all of them wear a long tunic like the surplice worn by priests.”16 The basic seamed garment was a loose tunic (qamīs or thawb) derived from the late Roman tunic or camisia, a sleeved garment, with or without a belt and loosely fitted to permit air circulation and shade the body from the sun.17 If more clothing (or more formality) was required, a very wide loose coat was worn over the tunic (jallâba or abâ; hooded burnus). This coat might have no attached sleeve, but it had a simple, wide rectangular shape with openings at the top corners for the hands. Various short- and long-sleeved coats and caftans were also worn in the early Muslim period, depending on locality and status of the wearer. The tunic or the coat could be embellished with bands of elaborately woven or embroidered decoration 8

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure 1.5. Two students approach their master (from De Materia Medica by Dioscorides), 1229. Istanbul, Topkapı Palace Museum Directorate. This image depicts northern Arab dress as would have been seen in Iraq or northern Syria. Unfortunately, images of southern Arabs are relatively rare in this period. Note the tiraz bands on the sleeves.

(see fig. 1.5).18 These forms of early Arab dress were also worn by their Semitic cousins, the Hebrews, in the biblical period with some differences of detail and embellishment.19 To cover the head a folded or draped piece of cloth might be bound to the head by a cord or band of cloth or simply wrapped around the head (see fig. 1.6). Head coverings appear in rock paintings dating to the first or second millennium BCE, even though indications of other clothing are minimal. Covering the head is vital in the intense desert heat, so perhaps this was an inevitable component of dress in this region. It came to be associated with propriety and modesty long before the Muslim era. De Joinville describes Bedouin wearing “their heads . . . all bound around with cloths that go underneath the chin.”20 If the head cloth were folded or twisted and wrapped horizontally around the head, across the forehead and above the ears, it was referred to as imāma but is better known to us by the term Before the Ottoman Era, East and West

9

Figure 1.6. Picture postcard, “A Bedouin in his happy mood,” Jamal Brothers, no. 46, Jerusalem, Palestine, 1921. Library of Congress. Accessed February 8, 2017. https://www.loc.gov/item/ mamcol.044/. This simple arrangement of a shawl bound with a cord or another turban-like length of cloth seems to represent the most basic form of Arab head covering from an early date.

“turban,” a word derived from the Persian dulband originally derived from the Turkish tülbent. The color, arrangement, and material of these head coverings could vary according to region, status, and group affiliation.21 For women the basic tunic garment was similar but accompanied by gender-distinguishing head- and face-covering veils (lithām, izâr) (see fig. 1.7). The structure and terminology of these veils varied greatly from region to region. Veiling appears to have been part of pre-Islamic Arab women’s dress as well. The veil was often combined with a face-obscuring mask (burqa or niqāb).22 Burqa refers to a version seen in the Arabian Peninsula 10

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure 1.7. A theologian preaching (from Les Makamat de Hariri, 58v), 1236–37. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des manuscrits, Arabe 5847. The theologian is on the raised seat and some members of his audience below seem to be wearing the quilted taç under their turbans, which is characteristic of the dress of various Muslim religious orders. They are also wearing the classic Arab thawb with tiraz bands. A separate audience of women is in the balcony, all veiled, most wearing various combinations of wrapped underscarves with additional masks or face coverings.

that immigrants from the Makram coast of Iran and Pakistan may have first introduced there.23 Worn beneath the veil, it is designed to obscure the face completely from the gaze of strangers. Veiling appears to have been part of pre-Islamic Arab women’s dress as well. Accounts of Roman historians described Arab women covering their faces well before the Muslim era.24 In some regions, the later addition of silk or wool vests or jackets embellished with couched gold thread or silk embroidery probably represents the introduction of a Turkish feature of dress into an Arab aesthetic. Seljuk and Mamluk Turkish rule from the eleventh century to the fourteenth century established Turkish elites and bureaucracies that maintained their distinctive customs and forms of dress.25 Ottoman Turkish rule replaced Seljuk rule beginning in the fourteenth century with Mamluk rule beginning in the sixteenth century. Since specific forms of dress were mandated for Ottoman officials and military ranks, such attire would eventually be introBefore the Ottoman Era, East and West

11

duced in all the Arab lands during the many centuries of Ottoman rule. These features became particularly notable in Syrian, Egyptian, and some North African dress. The wearing of sirwāl (loose trousers) by some Arabs in urban or northern regions may also be an Ottoman introduction, although an undergarment was worn that might have been similar in form, possibly as early as the time of the Prophet. It is possible that the sirwāl was introduced into North Arabian dress by contact with northern invaders from Persia as early as the third century BCE, and Parthian influences are suggested for the Roman era. However, typical Arab outerwear was the tunic form, with the sirwāl less common and usually less visible if worn.26

Turkish Dress

The Turks were a nomadic people originating in Central Asia, and their form of dress reflected their nomadic origins. The first firm mention of Turks in the written record appears in the sixth century CE. The Turks apparently arose somewhere north and west of Mongolia and China in Central Asia, a region where Indo-European and Altaic nomads alternately shared and competed for the grazing lands of the steppes and mountain valleys.27 The Uralic and Altaic Mongols, Turks, and Kirghiz, and IndoEuropeans such as the Iranians, Pashtun, Kurds, and Tajiks, among others, shared the essential features of this mode of dress—all with their own variations. However, in the period examined here it was the Turks who brought this mode of dress to the shores of the Mediterranean where it was more readily encountered by Europeans; thus, it is Turkish dress primarily described here. The horse was the defining feature of nomad culture and nomad dress. The fundamental nomad garments were loose baggy trousers, called şalvar in Turkish, and a shirt (gömlek), combined with layered jackets, vests, and coats, plus head covering and sash. Life on horseback dictated these garment forms. The full, drop-crotched trousers provided ease of movement and prevented chafing of the legs on horseback. The şalvar is probably the best-known component of the Turkish dress system. As many as ninety different styles of şalvar have been identified in traditional Turkish dress, differing somewhat in cut but all having the deep crotch and loose fit.28 Other important features of this ensemble are the layered jackets (cepken, salta), vests (yelek), and coats (kaftan, entari, űç etek, dolman), garments that opened down the front and were worn instead of the pullover tunics favored by settled Arabs and Europeans in this period. The extremely variable climate of the steppes required this layered system of clothing to which one could easily add or remove pieces, depending on the weather, even on horseback. The layering of coats and jackets was an important feature of the dress aesthetic as well.29 It served to mark status as much as it served practical purposes. The more jackets and coats were worn, the more formal the attire. Sleeves were designed to allow all the layers of luxurious fabrics to be visible. Undercoats frequently had extremely long sleeves that would be worn pushed up on the arm, displaying

12

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

rich folds of fabric. These snug-fitting sleeves could have buttons to the elbow. The long sleeves could also be pulled down over the hands in cold weather, which is the most probable reason that this feature appears in the dress of steppe dwellers from an early date. Outer coats might have wider short sleeves that could be easily worn over narrower long sleeves. A coat might have a long sleeve that was only attached by buttons to the armscye at the top and back of the shoulder, so that the sleeve would hang down the back when not pulled over the arm, revealing the underlayers. The layered coat aesthetic of Central Asian dress has spread throughout Asia and can be observed wherever ultimate Central Asian connections can be traced. These features continued unchanged in essential forms into the twentieth century (see fig. 1.8). The edges of outer coats were often tucked up into the sash (see fig. 1.8). They were caught up not only for convenience during riding or other physical activity but also to display the sumptuous variety of colors and materials in the underlayers of clothing. Some outermost coats (kaftan, entari, dolman) were intended to be simply cast over the shoulders, the sleeves left to hang down. Even in the twentieth century, Turkish Central Asian coats were intended to be worn this way and have long sleeves that have actually been sewn shut and attached to one another in back.30 The presentation of outer coats made of rich fabrics and possibly trimmed or lined with furs was an important aspect of the formal reception of honored guests by local chieftains and imperial sultans alike under Turkish rule (see fig. 1.9).31 The more elaborate the coat, the more highly regarded was the guest. An account of such a presentation is found in the memoirs of Ghiselin Ogier de Busbecq, who served as Austrian envoy to the court of Suleyman the Magnificent from 1554 to 1562. At his final audience with the sultan, Busbecq was greeted with great ceremony, in spite of the fact that his mission to obtain a peace treaty had failed: “Two ample embroidered robes reaching to my ankles were thrown about me, which were as much as I could carry. My attendants were also presented with silken robes of various colors and, clad in these, accompanied me. I thus

Before the Ottoman Era, East and West

Figure 1.8. Wolfhounds and their keepers. Mehmet Siyah Kalem, Herat or Tabriz: H.2160, f95a, 15th century. Istanbul, Topkapı Palace Museum Directorate. This is a picture of early Turkmen life in the western end of Central Asia with exceptional details of dress. Note how the longest coat, to the left, is tucked up into the sash, a common practice for men or women engaged in any physical activity.

13

Figure 1.9. Detail, ceremonial reception and presentation of an honor coat to a court official, 16th century. Istanbul, Topkapı Palace Museum Directorate. Note the hanging sleeves on the robe of honor presented to an official.

14

proceeded in stately procession, as though I were going to play the part of Agamemnon or some similar hero in a tragedy, and bade farewell to the Sultan after receiving his dispatch wrapped up in cloth of gold.”32 Gifts of coats have been made to American officials on state visits to Central Asian countries in recent years and carry the same meanings as they did in Ottoman court ceremonial. More recently, the current president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, habitually wore a green-striped silk coat thrown over his shoulders as a sign of his office when making official public appearances (see fig. 1.10). One or more sashes, usually a bulky length of colorful fabric tied around the waist whose folds could carry weapons, money, and other small objects, completed the traditional TurkOttoman Dress and Design in the West

ish ensemble. Although some coats had pockets, the sash was the more traditional receptacle for small articles. The shaping of garments was simple, with straight seams, not specifically fitted to the individual body. Triangular inserts added fullness to the sleeves or the body of the coat, shirt, or şalvar but the form of the garment was generally defined by the loom width of the fabrics employed without the waste resulting from tailored curved seams. Therefore, fit was never exact and often very bulky and stiff, obscuring and adding mass to the body form. This appearance of bulk and mass was considered an important part of elegant dress. The tense, stiff structure of Turkish layered coats, şalvar trousers, and elaborately fabricated head coverings all combined to reconstruct and augment the body silhouette. This effect was in marked contrast to the looser, softer garments most typical of Arab dress, which floated about the body to obscure its form and ventilate heat. Headgear, traditionally in the form of hats, was always a very important marker of status, gender, and group identity for Turks, even prior to their conversion to Islam in the ninth century (see fig. 1.11a and b). For highstatus individuals the hats could be quite large, usually also tall. The addition of plumes and crests was a sign of prestige and honor, awarded not only as a badge of office but also in recognition of great accomplishments Before the Ottoman Era, East and West

Figure 1.10. President Hamid Karzai in a modern ceremonial coat of honor during a special ceremony at the Pentagon. September 25, 2006. US Air Force/DOD photo/ Helene C. Stikkel. Karzai wears a silk kaftan thrown over his shoulders, as he always did when making public appearances as president of Afghanistan. Intended to be worn this way, the kaftan signifies his ceremonial role and status.

15

Left, Figure 1.11a. China: A Uighur prince (from the Bezeklik Thousand Buddha Caves, Turfan, Xinjiang), 8th–9th centuries. (Pictures from History/Bridgeman Images.) Right, Figure 1.11b. Horse and female rider, unfired clay with pigment (probably from Astana, Xinjiang), 7th century. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Fletcher Fund, 1951. Creative Commons License Zero.

16

or bravery, much as medals are given in the Western tradition.33 Feathered crests were often part of state gifts to ambassadors and others honored by state receptions or audiences, along with the ceremonial gift of a coat. Following the Turkish conversion to Islam beginning in the tenth century, the turban became part of their repertoire of headgear. Turbans worn by men of consequence in the Ottoman Turkish context were usually highly constructed wrappings of fine cotton built up over the base of a substantial hat and were frequently quite tall. The specific shape, size, and color of the hat and the turban wrapping denoted particular public offices and degrees of status. The forms were subject to strict regulation in the Ottoman era and earlier.34 The lexicon of terms for the various forms of hats and turbans is immense. The Turkish term tűlbent is the source of our word “turban” and refers both to the turban and to the fine white cotton cloth used for wrapping formal Turkish turbans. It is also a word used to describe a white tulip, as the bulbous shape of Turkish turbans is thought to resemble the tulip form. The term passed from Turkish into Persian and thence into broader use.35 The turban was so important as an emblem of rank that a man’s turban was carved on the top of his tombstone. The turban was actually placed on the sarcophagus of imperial tombs or those of holy men (see fig. 1.12). However, among the poor, a common form of turban (sarık, meaning “wrapper”) might be a simple scarf, perhaps colorful, casually wrapped and knotted around the base of a hat (kavuk), or the hat Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure 1.12. The tomb of a Sufi saint at the Mevlana Turbe, Konya. (Photograph by author.) It was customary to bury notables with their turban displayed as a marker of their status. One also sees carved life-size headgear at the top of a tombstone, advertising the rank and occupation of the deceased.

Figure 1.13. Şükri Bidlisi, The Ottoman Army drawn up for Battle with the Safavids, 1525, in the Selimname, H. 1597– 98. Istanbul, Topkapı Palace Museum Directorate. Safavid Persian (left) and Ottoman Turkish (right) armies drawn up for battle. Both groups show evidence of their common Central Asian origins. Note headgear distinctions, particularly the extremely tall and narrow red taç worn by the Safavid leaders. The Ottomans show more variety in their dress, but this may be because the Ottoman artist had greater knowledge of Ottoman dress.

alone might be worn. The elaborate and distinctive horned headgear and tall, bulbous turbans of prominent Mamluk personages of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were a reflection of their Turkish ancestry and distinct from the dress of their Egyptian Arab subjects.36 Similarly the distinctive tall, thin, red hat (taç) that was the base for sixteenth-century turbans worn by the Kizilbaş of western Iran (Turkish for “Red Head”) is also a characteristically Turkic headgear statement, adopted by the Safavid dynasty, which did have Turkic roots in spite of its Shiite and Persian affiliations (see fig. 1.13).37 Tall hats and seamed garments were also characteristic of some ancient dress in the Middle East and are seen notably in early Sumerian and Assyrian costume representations. These people seemed to have entered Mesopotamia from the northeast, as have most of the invaders of the Middle East over the millennia, and may reflect a Central Asian tradition of long standing. Semitic use of tall headgear continued into Classical times, notably among Hebrews and northern Syrians. However, for the most part, with the exceptions of Druze women and various Christian and Hebrew priests or in representations of pagan deities, tall headgear was not a prominent feature of most Near Eastern dress by Roman times.38 The general arrangement of garments for both men and women was very similar, although differences in cut and decoration distinguish gender differences. However, the cut of outer garments, particularly coats, was often so similar that it is sometimes difficult to determine whether men or women wore individual surviving garments in collections such as that of the Topkapı Palace Museum. On the other hand, head coverings were markedly different for men and women. Turkish women’s headgear typically consisted of a hat of variable height, shape, and decoration, bound to the head by a scarf that was wrapped under the chin and tied securely on top of the head (baş őrtűsű, yemeni). A second band or scarf might be worn wrapped horizontally around the head. This wrapping is perhaps equivalent to the male turban but usually was much smaller. Finally, a shawl could be draped over the whole and might or might not cover the lower part of the face in public. This outer shawl might merely cover the head and shoulders (çarşaf) or envelop the entire body to the feet (çador, ih.rām) and might take a variety of forms and colors depending on the affiliations of the wearer (see fig. 1.14a and b). Turkish women were generally less closely veiled than Arab women because veiling was not part of their pre-Islamic dress tradition. Some Turkish tribal women are known to not have covered the face at all. However, urban, upper-class women wore out of doors various combinations of wrapped and pinned scarves that would include a lower face covering; this combination was known generally as yaşmak in later periods. Differences also existed in the accessories of the dress of elite urban women, although the basic set of elements was quite similar (see figs. 1.15 and 1.16). One distinctive form of outer veiling shared by some modern Turkish village women with Turkmen women in Central Asia was a coat with atrophied hanging sleeves too slender for arms and worn on top of the head, so that 18

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure 1.14a. Image of a woman’s headdress (detail). Seljuk Turkish woman, part of a painted design for a mechanical drink server, alJazari’s Kitab fi Marifet elHiyal el Handasiya Diyarbakir, 13th century. Istanbul, Topkapı Palace Museum Directorate. This image shows an arrangement in which scarves are tied down over a hat and wrapped underneath the chin. A second scarf is wrapped horizontally across the forehead. This arrangement of scarves, with or without the hat, is typical for Turkish women to the present era. Also note the decorative upper armband.

Figure 1.14b. Emine Özgül, southwestern Turkey, c. 1965. (Photograph by author.) This Anatolian Turkish woman wears an arrangement of scarves similar to the thirteenth-century example to the left. In this region, hats were not worn under the scarves, though they are still used in many places, particularly in northern and eastern Anatolia. The ends of the oya lace-trimmed scarf that wrap under the chin are brought up over the head and tied. A second scarf, customarily worn by married women, is wrapped horizontally over the forehead. A third larger scarf is tied by its corners over the woman’s shoulders to keep handy in case she goes outside her compound.

Above, Figure 1.15. Women approaching an official in the street, 16th century. Külliyat-ı Kitabi, Edime. Istanbul, Topkapı Palace Museum Directorate. Detail from a miniature painting. These urban women have tied their scarves firmly around their heads and faces. In public, city women wore plain, usually dark, long coats that completely covered their other garments. The street wear of modern conservative women in Turkey and other Islamic Mediterranean countries is much the same.

Facing bottom, Figure 1.16. Women musicians playing before the sultan, 1460 detail. Külliyat-ı Kitabi, Edime. Istanbul, Topkapı Palace Museum Directorate. The three women in the foreground are wearing some elements of traditional Turkish dress, including the tall, pointed hats. They seem to wear the hats over their scarves, which then trail back in this intimate scene. The women at the center and right may also be wearing forehead bands, which were a fashionable replacement for the rolled scarf worn by commoners. Left, Figure 1.17. Lovers, pages from Hātifi Timűrnāme, Safavid Qazvin, 1575. Istanbul, Topkapı Palace Museum Directorate. Subtle differences in accessories and head coverings mark the dress of this couple as Persian. However, it includes the same Turkic and Central Asian layering of coats over trousers.

the “shoulders” and front opening closed around the head and face quite effectively. Persian dress shared with that of the Turks forms that were characteristic of Central Asian nomadic origins—layered coats, a chemise, and the loose-fitting trousers called şalvar being the basic garments. For Persian women a full-skirted dress or skirt might replace or augment the straighter Turkish chemise, perhaps layered with jackets and coats. The dress/tunic Before the Ottoman Era, East and West

21

form for women was perhaps a characteristic common to the IndoEuropean heritage of many of the ethnic groups of Persia. Persian and other inner Asian coats, however, tended to have a diagonal closure that ran from the left side of the neckline to the right side. This Central Asian feature was not commonly used by western Turks, whose coats generally closed down the center front (see fig. 1.17). The Turko-Mongol forms of dress were first established, along with Islam, in northern India by Turkic Gaznevids who invaded from Central Asia in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The Mughal (Timurid) conquest in the sixteenth century confirmed these forms of dress in a land otherwise known for the unseamed dhoti and sari. For men of the Mughal court trousers (paijama) were typically combined with front-opening coats or jackets of varying length and cut (angarkha or jama) but typically were more full-skirted than most Persian or Turkish equivalents. The relationship to Persian dress is strong, however. For women, the characteristic ensemble might include a bodice or tunic (kurta or choli), skirt (gaghra), and trousers (salwar) as well as a veil. The exquisitely fine and complex silks and cottons of India are a distinctive characteristic of dress from this region (see fig. 1.18).39

Facing, Figure 1.18. Painting by Balachand, Jahangir and His Father Akbar, c. 1630. Folio from the Shah Jahan Album, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Rogers Fund and Kevorkian Foundation Gift, 1955. The fuller coat skirts and prominent sash ends are Mughal features of the basic Central Asian forms.

Following the rise of Byzantium as the heir to the Roman Empire in the fifth century, Europe increasingly looked to the East as the center of culture and civilization. After the fall of Rome, Europe became a backwater of local communities and warring factions in which cities declined severely or were abandoned.40 Not until the rise of the Frankish kings in the eighth and ninth centuries did Europe begin to recover. In this period, Byzantium was the source of luxury, knowledge, and culture. From the seventh century onward, however, a new religion and culture emerged to supplant Byzantine rule in the ancient Eastern provinces of Rome. Islam, founded in the Arabian Peninsula, rapidly expanded to encompass much of the southern reaches of the former Roman world. Arab Islamic rule would extend into Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Persia, and by the eighth century into North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Spain, and Asia Minor. For Europeans, the rise of the Islamic Empire was alarming not only politically but also as an attack on the universality of the Christian faith. Notwithstanding schisms and theological disputes, European Christians shared a belief in the singularity and authority of Christianity that could not admit challenge or defeat. The Islamic expansion represented an enormous challenge to the Church’s views and would continue to inform its policies and actions for centuries to come.41 European trade in the period before the Crusades tended to be relatively short distance, mostly composed of itinerant peddlers and merchants traveling from fair to fair. Only those on the Mediterranean coast, particularly in northern Italy, were able to undertake the perils of the Eastern trade, and

The Early Medieval European Context

Before the Ottoman Era, East and West

23

often it was Armenian or Jewish merchants, with ties east and west, who conducted this limited long-distance trade. Muslims soon controlled virtually the entire Mediterranean, hampering Frankish ability to communicate or trade with Byzantium for the next three centuries. Nonetheless, Frankish kings, culminating in the reign of Charlemagne (742–814), were able to create a kingdom that comprised much of western Europe. After Charlemagne restored Pope Leo III in 800, the Pope crowned him Holy Roman Emperor, charged with defense of the Catholic lands against the infidel. With this mandate, Charlemagne continued to expand his empire into the north, converting pagan Saxon populations by force where necessary. After his death, in spite of continuing warfare, Europe began to coalesce into a feudal economy that permitted some growth of trade and improvement in living standards.42 The Crusades were a major step in the rebirth of the European economy and culture beginning at the end of the eleventh century. Several factors led to this development.43 The beginning of the Reconquista in Spain, together with the successes of the Seljuk Turks against the Arab rulers of the Middle East, offered hope that the Islamic expansion could be successfully opposed. The Seljuk defeat of the Byzantines at Manzikert in 1071 caused the Byzantine emperor to appeal for aid from Catholic Europe against the Muslim Turkish armies, despite his awareness that Europeans were apt to be at least as interested in invading Byzantine lands in the Balkans as they were likely to be in confronting the Turks. The first Crusade was declared in 1095 by Pope Urban II and was ultimately successful in its goal of the conquest of Jerusalem and the establishment of a Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1099. Subsequent Crusades between 1144 and 1272 were all military failures, having ended, as it has been said, in either “tragedy or farce” with the Crusaders never again able to control the Holy Land.44 In spite of these military difficulties, the establishment of Christian outposts in the Levant greatly increased opportunities for trade, stimulating economic growth in the West. The Crusader view of Islamic society alternated between religious abhorrence and a more material admiration of a far more sophisticated civilization and its exotic luxury goods. This ambivalence was to be the hallmark of European attitudes toward Muslims for centuries to come. At the same time, the Muslim experience of the apparently inexplicable invasions of these Christian barbarians was the foundation of a bitterness that still colors the Muslim world’s relations with the West, reinforced by centuries of continuing conflict and mutual incomprehension.

The Early Islamic Context

Islam arose in Arabia in the early seventh century, and by the beginning of the eighth century, it had spread to North Africa, Spain, Persia, and much of Byzantine Anatolia—most of the previous Roman lands. In spite of the fact that the Muslim world included a variety of ethnicities from an early date, and the Arab world included a variety of Christian and other religious 24

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

communities, the term “Arab” was (and sometimes still is) often used interchangeably with the term “Muslim.” Arabic was the sacred language of Islam in which the Koran had been revealed to Muhammed. Consequently, Arabic became the lingua franca of the Islamic world, as Latin had been in the Roman Empire and continued to be in Christian Europe until the end of the Middle Ages. By the middle of the eighth century, the unity of Arab rule under the Umayyad dynasty was fracturing into a number of separate dynastic states. Schisms between dynasties and beliefs often followed ethnic or tribal divisions, but no Muslim state was ever composed of a single ethnicity or faith. This multiplicity of languages and cultures enriched Islamic society. Although warfare was the means of establishing Muslim rule, conversion by force was rare. However, there were differences in taxation and other rights and responsibilities between Muslim and non-Muslims.45 One side effect of the Crusades was a deterioration of the position of Christians in Muslim lands and a hardening of the boundaries between Christians and Muslims. The rate of conversion dropped substantially after the eleventh century, even though Christian lands continued to pass into Muslim rule.46 In the Medieval period, Europeans used another term to describe Muslims: “Saracen.” This term dates back to Classical times and first appears in Ptolemy’s Geography in the second century CE, used to describe Arabs of the Hijaz.47 However, by the time of the Crusades, the term had broadened further to include all Muslims of whatever ethnic origin. In the eighth century, the Abbasid Arab rulers of Baghdad instituted the practice of employing mercenary or slave armies, including Turkish ones, and well before the twelfth century a majority of the Muslim population and even of Muslim rulers were not Arab.48 Thus, both the terms “Arab” and “Saracen” must be viewed with caution as indicators of ethnicity in reading historical discussions of this period. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries Seljuk Turks ruled in Persia and Anatolia and for varying periods of time held most of Iraq and northern Syria, including Baghdad, Jerusalem, Mosul, Antioch, Aleppo, and Damascus.49 As a result, the Crusaders would most often encounter Turkish rulers. Saladin (Salah al-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub, 1137–93) was perhaps the most famous to Europeans. Albert Hourani wrote that in the Arab eastern Mediterranean and in Persia, “from the eleventh century onwards most ruling groups in both areas were neither Arab nor Persian in origin, language or political tradition, but Turks. . . . The dynasties founded by Turks continued to use forms of the Turkish language in the army and palace, but in time were drawn into the world of Arabo-Persian culture, or at least acted as its patrons and guardians. In Iran, Turkish was the language of rulers and armies, Persian that of administration, and Arabic that of religious and legal culture.”50 This blending of cultures in the Islamic world, under Turkish rule, provided the cultural framework within which Islamic culture would continue to evolve in the Ottoman era. Before the Ottoman Era, East and West

25

Trade in the Mediterranean World

Before the twelfth century, Italian or other European traders did not regularly visit the markets of Palestine and Syria. The Alexandria trade was controlled by Jews, Greeks, and Syrians and tended to reach Europe via Islamic Sicily and Spain.51 Armenian merchants also maintained extensive trade networks from an early date. It is known that some Near Eastern merchants ventured to European markets. At least some Near Eastern or Central Asian travelers, presumably merchants, appear to have reached Viking Northern Europe sometime before 1000 CE, based on the textile and clothing remains excavated at Birka on the Baltic coast of Sweden, a town that later disappeared.52 These merchants would have used the river routes that extended northward from the Black Sea and Caspian regions. Genoese accounts attest that in addition substantial numbers of Italian merchants began to trade with the Levant once the Crusades had established city-states in the region. The primary income for the Crusaders of every rank was looting. There was no question but that loot was a motivating factor in the enormous response to the calls for crusade during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, along with the offer of remission of sins for participation. Organized commercial ventures were soon launched, notably those of the Italian maritime states, that gained special trade privileges in the Crusader states in exchange for providing naval support and transport for the Frankish Crusaders. The eastern Mediterranean trade enriched Genoa, Pisa, and subsequently Venice, which then became the preeminent commercial powers. This pattern of organization was one that would be typical for centuries in Levantine trading communities. The Italians had their own quarter and developed their own services—churches, warehouses, baths, mills, bakeries, slaughterhouses, and the like. Each mercantile settlement of different origin had its own consul or Bailo. Very extensive trade privileges, legal immunities, and exemptions from customs were granted to the Venetians in Tyre in 1123 in return for naval support in the capture of the port. The Pisans and Genoese had their main center in Acre.53 The princes of the Crusader city-states in the Levant were particularly drawn to the wealth of natural resources obtained through Alexandria in Egypt. Though Frankish conquest was resisted by the “Saracens,” trade was welcome. By 1174, Saladin was trying to woo the Italian maritime cities and their trade away from Constantinople to Alexandria. He wrote to the caliph of Baghdad that even though these infidels had been military enemies so recently, there was value in encouraging commercial contact.54 Alexandria was important throughout this period because Egypt was the gateway for most of the transit trade with India and Arabia. Some Indian trade also came overland to Acre and Tyre, and goods from Persia and Mesopotamia came to the Syrian ports. Exports to Europe included linen; a variety of silk textiles, including damasks as well as simpler crepes and taffetas; muslins; dye materials including indigo, brazilwood, and alum; as well as drugs and pharmaceutical goods, incense, and spices. Until the alum mines of Phocaea (Foa) in northwestern Anatolia were opened in

26

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

1275, alum, the most important dye mordant, was primarily available from Egypt. Textiles, mainly wool, were an important part of the return trade.55 The dyes, textiles, raw materials, and other luxury goods of the East made their way from Italy into Europe overland via the system of market fairs and through the maritime trade of European ports, particularly those in Flanders. In the Islamic world, in addition to the ports, there were equivalent fairs that were the means of exchanging goods across an even wider system of distribution. During Seljuk Turkish rule in Anatolia, one such fair was the annual Yabanlu Pazari or “Market of Foreigners” held at the crossroads of several major trade routes, both north-south and east-west, in central Anatolia.56 Although the origins of this market are not known, it was active at least in the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries and was documented by a number of Muslim travelers. It was held for forty days in late spring on a high plateau used into the nineteenth century as summer pasture by Avşar Turkish nomads and located about sixty miles east of the modern city of Kayseri (Roman Caeserea), an important Seljuk capital on the road to Syria. Traders from Central Asia and Byzantium, the kingdom of Cyprus, the Italian states, and other points in Europe attended this annual market where a wide range of goods was offered for sale. Furs from the Volga and textiles including satin and siglaton cloths or garments (described as silk embellished with gold from Baghdad, perhaps similar to that seen in fig. 1.21) were specifically mentioned. Italian merchants particularly sought the textiles as well as the horses bred by the Turkish tribes of Anatolia.57 This “Market of Foreigners” apparently came to an end with the Mongol conquest of the Seljuk Empire in 1243. In connection with textiles, technologies were also an important subject of trade. Dyes and other processes were introduced along with various tools and techniques. In the thirteenth century, feltmaking was introduced in Europe as hats gained popularity.58 Feltmaking has a very long history in Asia.

Initially Western theologians viewed Islam as a heresy, based as it was in the biblical tradition and, as such, it was viewed with almost more scorn than might have been the case had it been perceived as a separate religion.59 By the time the Crusades had led to direct encounters with Muslims, Islam had come to be seen as a true adversary of Christendom. However, whether as heresy or a devilish plot of the antichrist, early research on Islam was always intended to counteract its influence on the increasing numbers of Christians falling under Muslim rule. On the whole, the Frankish residents of Outremer (as the Crusader kingdoms of the Levant were termed) lived separate lives among their Muslim neighbors, adopting relatively little of their culture other than a taste for their luxury goods, including textiles and dress.60 Their ignorance of Muslim civilization is evidenced by acts such as the destruction of the great library of Tripoli and the dismantling and sale of the Jewish library of Jerusalem. This was in contrast with the

Before the Ottoman Era, East and West

The Western Perception of the East

27

more symbiotic pattern of cultural sharing that occurred at this time in Andalusia under Moorish rule. Yet the rival was also viewed with respect and even a growing fascination in Latin Europe. A few Franks became interested in the scholarship of the East. William of Tyre, born in that city, was a leading historian of the Crusades who also attempted to comprehend the Muslim adversary. Merchants and Crusaders brought back to Europe more than consumer goods and holy relics; they also brought knowledge of the East via literature, travelers’ tales, and Arab texts acquired as loot or through purchase. The first attempts at founding centers for the study of Arabic language and Muslim thought began in France in 1140 and subsequently in Spain and elsewhere. Scholars began to seek out Arabic translations of lost Greek and Roman classics as well as more recent Arabic texts on medicine, mathematics, and other subjects. Introduction to Muslim poetry and literature led to what has been termed Medieval Romanticism in European literature after 1150, which included the mythos of chivalry, an idealized vision of honor, love, and faith that was drawn from Islamic literature and became the archetype of knightly virtue throughout the later Middle Ages. In popular culture from the eleventh century into the twelfth century wildly bizarre tales of Muslim beliefs and practices were circulated through popular tales such as those found in the Chansons de Geste. It was suggested that Muhammed was a sorcerer worshiped as an idol, whose teachings encouraged sexual promiscuity, deceit, and barbarities. Yet by the thirteenth century, the continuing exposure to Islam experienced by merchants, warriors, and scholars gradually constructed a picture of Muslims that was slightly less fanciful and not entirely negative, though still far from accurate. Maxime Rodinson provides a tongue-in-cheek summary cataloguing some of these rudimentary stereotypes of Muslim life current in medieval literary depictions: “The Saracens had beards, which they valued greatly: they swore by them, and they were disconsolate without them. The turbans they wore protected them from blows in battle. . . . They respected the elderly; they loved gaudy colors. They were admired for their wealth in gold, silver, precious stones and magnificent fabrics as well as the palaces of their sovereigns, decorated with gold, silver and marble, and refreshing fountains. Multicolored birds brought from all over the East and all sorts of animals were to be seen in their menageries.”61 This description can be recognized as having some distant relation, however superficial and derogatory, to what Europeans could have observed in Muslim lands at that time. Although relations between “Saracen” and Christian were not friendly or discerning, there began to be a certain level of comprehension and perhaps even occasionally respect. These early stereotypes have colored popular caricatures of Muslims to the present day—consider, for example, the Aladdin and Scheherazade characters in popular Western media. The broad perception of luxurious, opulent splendor as the essence of Muslim taste is a fundamental aesthetic element in

28

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Orientalist fashion and design reinforced over the years by luxuries imported from the Levant.

In the early Islamic era, the primary connection to the Muslim world for Europe was through Spain. Therefore, any early Islamic influences would have been most likely to come in Moorish or Arab form. Before the twelfth century, patterned fabrics were a rare luxury most likely acquired from Islamic or Byzantine sources. All-over patterned fabrics began to appear in images depicting luxurious clothing by the middle of the twelfth century and would certainly have been costly imports if the patterns had been woven rather than embroidered. By the twelfth century, a taste also developed for boldly striped fabrics, the forerunner of the vivid parti-color dress that would spread across Europe in the next century. In 1254, members of the Carmelite monastic order, founded at Mount Carmel in Palestine, returned to France with Saint Louis, King of France, who had been held captive by the “Saracens.” The Carmelites wore striped robes that drew mockery, and they were so ridiculed for their wearing of this striped garment that by 1284 the order decided to give them up. The wearing of stripes was by this time associated with the dress of infidel Muslims and viewed as a symbol of the devil or the alien other. It is certainly true that warp-striped textiles have been characteristic of Central Asian, Turkic, and Arab dress since ancient times. In any case, not until at least the seventeenth century did Europeans commonly wear striped cloth as respectable dress. Indeed in Germany, by the thirteenth century sumptuary law assigned striped cloth to the outcasts of society: bastards, serfs, and the condemned. It was also assigned to prostitutes and entertainers as a way of separating such degenerates from upstanding members of the community (see fig. 1.19).62 Adoption of such colorful garb has also been described as evidence of a fashionable hunger for the costly and exotic patterned textiles that could not yet be produced in Christian Europe. Striped cloth could be woven on the simplest of looms.63 The conquest of Muslim Sicily by Roger  II (1061–91) led to the establishment of the first Latin silk production, a continuation of the existing Muslim workshops (see fig. 1.3). His reign also permitted relatively easy European access to Islamic textiles, dress, and goods from points all around the Mediterranean, since Roger II maintained relations with his Muslim subjects and their commercial networks.64

Before the Ottoman Era, East and West

East-West Influences in Dress

Figure 1.19. Poet-composer Meister Heinrich Frauenlob, teaching in his music school. Codex Manesse, Zurich, 1305–40. Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg CC-BY-SA 4.0. European striped dress in a German illustration featuring musicians.

29

Figure 1.20a. Tiraz textile fragment, attributed to Yemen, late 9th–early 10th centuries. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of George D. Pratt, 1929. Creative Commons License Zero. Yemen was an important trade hub between the Mediterranean and India and points farther east via the Red Sea and Persian Gulfs. It also became an important textile production center.

30

Throughout this period, Byzantine influence continued to be important in European dress and textiles. Byzantine and late Roman aesthetics also contributed to early Islamic dress, architecture, and other art forms in Syria and Anatolia. Yet by end of the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turkish Empire had taken most of Anatolia from the Byzantines, and Islamic borrowings began to appear in later Byzantine dress. Kaftans (known in Byzantine Greek as scaramagnon) became part of late Byzantine court dress, borrowed from the nomadic kaftans worn by their Turkish adversaries.65 Although it is commonly asserted that during the Crusades the primary contact with the Islamic world continued to be via Moorish Andalusia, there are some features of dress that suggest borrowings from the eastern end of the Mediterranean as well. Even in the eleventh century, there are some minor suggestions of such connections. In this period, elaborate borders inserted in the upper sleeve and perhaps decorations along the lower edge of garments characterized Arab dress. This type of banding, known as tiraz, was an important sign of status in Islamic dress during the Umayyad, Ayyubid, and Fatimid periods in the seventh to twelfth centuries (see figs. 1.5 and 1.7). The design in the bands was typically an angular form of Arabic script known as kufic. These inscriptions might include the titles and name of the ruling caliph or lines of religious poetry. Tiraz garments were part of court protocol, presented as robes of honor by the ruler.66 Similarly placed and decorated borders also appear in Byzantine dress by this period. There is some debate as to whether tiraz bands are derived from the earlier clavi that decorated the tunics of Romans, although the placement is quite different. Both Byzantine and “Saracen” examples of this style would have been observed by Latin travelers. Borders similar in character were typical of the bliaud worn in the eleventh century, although the snugly laced upper body of this Latin version of the tunic was characteristically European and generally gave a very different silhouette than the Byzantine or Arab examples. In some examples from twelfth-century paintings, the European borders resemble kufic

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

script, suggesting an Islamic inspiration for this type of decoration (see fig. 1.20a and b).67 Because tiraz production was a royal prerogative, it was produced mainly in Baghdad and other ruling cities through the twelfth century.68 Italian merchants acquired gold-embellished textiles and garments from Baghdad in Anatolian markets.69 Tiraz textiles have survived in church treasuries, brought from the Holy Land by returning Crusaders. We can speculate that some of the banded European garments might have actually been Oriental imports, although most decorations in this style were likely produced locally, copying the look of the kufic motifs. There are instances where decorative bands containing Arabic inscriptions, derived from Islamic textiles, were incorporated into ecclesiastical robes. The wearers apparently did not comprehend the significance or the irony of this use (see figs. 1.21).70 In the early twelfth century, new fabrics appearing in European clothing repertoire were the silks and cottons of the East. The relaxed draping and forms were reminiscent of the soft forms of Arab or Moorish dress but also resembled classical or biblical forms—not coincidentally, since Arab dress was derived from Roman dress. It has been suggested that early Gothic dress was inspired in its soft classical draping by a desire to emulate the appearance of classical drapery seen in sculpture, since this was the dress at the time of Christ. It has also been suggested that adoption of loose, lightweight Arab garments would have been a matter of simple comfort in

Before the Ottoman Era, East and West

Left, Figure 1.20b. Bartolo di Fredi, The Adoration of the Magi, c. 1390. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Robert Lehman Collection, 1975. The biblical figures in this painting wear variations of the bliaud (long medieval garment) and cloak, with decorative borders and arm banding, similar to the Arab tiraz banding but without its legibility and significance. Right, Figure 1.21. Textile fragments with the name of “Ala” al-Din Kay Qubad I, mounted as a cope, 1219–37. Le Musée des Tissus de Lyon (MT 23475).

31

Facing top, Figure 1.22a. Historiated initial “V”(ita) of two doctors conversing (from the Articella, Harley MS 3140; f. 21r. c.1300. © The British Library). The arms of these two doctors emerge from their pullover, hooded gowns through slits at the front or top of the sleeves, which seem to be potentially functional if the wearer wanted more warmth. Facing bottom, Figure 1.22b. Apothecary Shop Sloane, 1977, f. 49v., 14th century (artwork © The British Library). The apothecary, seated at the right, wears a shorter, narrower sleeve with an opening that seems to be under the sleeve. Construction of these garments is quite different from the Eastern ones, providing an adaptation of the hanging sleeve in a setting where tailors were accustomed to very different clothing construction.

32

the unaccustomed heat. It seems equally likely that Crusaders and pilgrims, having seen classical examples in the ancient biblical cities, would have also seen the dress of the current inhabitants of the region as an equivalent and more vivid inspiration. We do know that to the extent that twelfth-century artists increasingly tried to depict accurate dress for biblical scenes in the twelfth century, they tended to dress them in garments associated with Near Eastern people, who were typically Muslims wearing turbans, flowing gowns, and coats or robes with hanging sleeves. Thus, a pious intention to modify one’s dress to resemble that of Christ and his mother Mary would involve borrowing from Muslim dress as observed in the Holy Land. This form of dress was also constructed from the soft, luxurious textiles available in the Levantine markets. Frankish people living in the Holy Land went even farther, according to Muslim chronicler Ibn Jubayr: “Christian ladies follow the fashions of Moslem women, are fluent of speech, wrap their cloaks about them, and are veiled. They go forth on this feast day (see of Christmas) dressed in robes of gold-embroidered silk, wrapped in elegant cloaks, concealed by colored veils, and shod with gilt slippers. Thus they parade to their churches . . . bearing all the adornments of Muslim women, including jewelry, henna on the fingers and perfumes.”71 In addition to an increasing use of new materials, some new forms were beginning to appear in dress. During the Crusades, the adoption by knights of the surcoat and quilted undercoat to protect the wearer from chain mail as it became hot in the sun is a well-known example of such a borrowing. Muslim soldiers wore quilted garments under armor, and the surcoat, in addition to shading chain mail, provided a means of identifying knights on the battlefield through embellishment with the symbols of their houses. It has been suggested that this change in dress on the battlefields of the Holy Land was the beginning of heraldry. Both quilted garments and the surcoat would be adapted to civilian dress.72 Layering of garments, not merely for additional warmth but also for aesthetic reasons, became a pronounced feature of European dress in the thirteenth century. Outer garments that had distinctive Eastern-style sleeves cut to display underlayers had never been part of European dress prior to the late twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Such garments initially became associated with scholars and clerics in this period.73 This was the same period when we see the emergence of interest in Arabic studies. Religious communities were certainly affected by the movement of pilgrims to the Holy Land, and most educated men were in holy orders. In religious and scholarly dress, outer garments began to appear that had the short, wide sleeve of Turkish-style outer kaftans or perhaps the Arab burnous, designed to show the sleeve of the garment underneath. Also we see the appearance in Western dress of the distinctive Turkic hanging sleeve. In some instances, we see an indication of a slit at the bottom center of the front, or a pair of narrow slits on each side, almost as if the pullover gown is beginning to open up the front like a coat (see fig. 1.22a and b).

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure 1.23. Drawing by Thomas de Roumais (d. 1264), surcoat with button and loop closure (from Camille Piton, 1842–1917, Le costume civil in France du XIIIe au XIXe siècle, 35). Accessed March 13, 2017. https:// archive.org/details/lecostumecivilin00pitouoft. The front of this surcoat has either been constructed with a diagonally cut slash, or the fabric is folded over to achieve a snug fit at the neckline and then attached with a row of buttons.

34

Also by the end of the twelfth century we see the appearance of pelissons, which were fur-lined outer garments worn by both men and women. Furs originated in northern forests but were traded to the West mainly through the markets of the eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea. Various furs were available at the great annual Seljuk Yabanlu Pazari (“Market of Foreigners”).74 The fur-lined robe was a luxurious status item worn by Muslim nobility, presented as gifts of state, and much admired by Crusader chroniclers.75 Another feature of dress inevitably associated with coats was the button. This was not a part of European dress in the early Middle Ages, but it was part of the Middle Eastern and Central Asian tradition of coats and, in time, of all Muslim dress. In the thirteenth century Book of Chess of Alfonso the Wise of Castile, a Moor was shown wearing a long gown with buttons, but Spaniards in the pictures did not wear buttons. However, button maker was one of the trades listed in a document from Paris dated 1292, so by this date, buttons were beginning to come into use in France, at least as decorative items (see fig. 1.23).76 Headgear before this time had not been a pronounced feature of European dress.77 However, this began to change in the era of pilgrimage and Crusades. By the eleventh century the turban, that quintessential mark of the Muslim, had already spread to Europe, at least as a detail to be included in any depictions of Middle Easterners, particularly when they were cast in the role of villains (see fig. 1.24). Also in women’s dress after 1150, a head-covering arrangement appears consisting of a narrow, stiff, horizontal band and chin-wrapped band or veil—the fillet and barbette—that bears a striking resemblance to the headgear of Turkish women (see fig. 1.25). The classic Turkish female head covering involves a scarf wrapped closely around the head and under the chin, exposing and framing the face but covering the hair and neck completely and snugly. Often this head covering was combined with a cylindrical cap of variable height, but usually not tall, sometimes with a wrapped scarf or band bound across the forehead and around the first scarf (see fig. 1.14). The

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

fillet and barbette forms continued in general use in Northern Europe until at least the fifteenth century, after which time they were preserved in religious dress. This arrangement of head and neck covering survived into the modern era in stylized form as the headgear of many nuns. This form of women’s religious dress has its origin in the twelfth century, during the early Crusades.78 Prior to this time, nuns had worn a modest veil but without an underveil that wrapped about the face and covered the neck beneath (see fig. 1.26). The early Benedictine rule was Mediterranean in origin, and it seems reasonable to suggest that female pilgrims to the Holy Land could have observed and copied the more modestly constructed arrangement of head coverings worn by the women who lived there.

Before the Ottoman Era, East and West

Figure 1.24. Turbaned woman, detail of an 1818 copy (from the Hortus Deliciarum by the Abbess Herrade de Landsburg, 1180). Bibliothèque nationale et universitaire de Strasbourg, R43. Note also the decorative tiraz-style armbands.

35

Facing, Figure 1.25. Two women and a confessor, late 12th century. Engelberg, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 14, Augustinus S. Aurelius. De Trinitate libri, f. 37v. Engleberg (Switzerland) Monastery Library. These European women wear their veils wrapped under the chin with a band bound across the forehead—the barbette and fillet. Above, Figure 1.26. Detail of six nuns, two with open books, from a miniature of a procession to Mass (from Yates Thompson, 11 manuscript, f. 6v. © The British Library). These nuns are wearing wimples, bands, and veils not unlike the head coverings still worn by some orders today.

Notes

1. Jean Hamilton, “Silkworms of the East Must Be Pillaged: The Cultural Foundations of Mass Fashion,” Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 8, no. 4 (1990): 40–48. 2. Charlotte Jirousek, “From ‘Traditional’ to ‘Mass Fashion System’ Dress among Men in a Rural Turkish Village,” Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 15, no. 4 (1997): 203–15. 3. J. B. Eicher and T. V. Erekosima, “Distinguishing Non-Western from Western Dress: The Concept of Cultural Authentication,” Proceedings of the Association of College Professors of Textiles and Clothing (1980): 83–84. 4. Alan Hunt, Governance of the Consuming Passions: A History of Sumptuary Law (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1996), 45. 5. Francois Boucher, 20,000 Years of Fashion (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1987), 191. 6. Hunt, Governance of the Consuming Passions, 45. 7. Annemarie Stauffer, “Clothing,” in Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World, ed. G. W. Bowersock, Peter Brown, and Oleg Grabar (Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 1999), 381. 8. Millia Davenport, The Book of Costume (New York: Crown, 1965), 89, 105. 9. Ibid., 104. 10. Maureen Mazzaoui, The Italian Cotton Industry in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 26–29. 11. Geoffroy de Villehardouin and Jean de Joinville, Memoirs of the Crusades, trans. Frank Marzials, vol. 333, Everyman’s Library (London: J. M. Dent, 1940), 235–36, 268. De Villehardouin died c. 1212. 12. Jennifer Harris, ed., Textiles 5000 Years (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1993), 165, 167, 180. 13. Alfred Rubens, A History of Jewish Costume (London: Valentine, Mitchell, 1967), xiv. 14. Bruce Ingham, “Men’s Dress in the Arabian Peninsula: Historical and Present Perspectives,” in Languages of Dress in the Middle East, ed. Nancy Lindisfarne-Tapper and Bruce Ingham (Surrey: Curzon, 1997), 40. 15. Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah, trans. Franz Rosenthal and ed. N. J. Dawood. Abridged ed. Bollingen (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969), 322–23. Khaldun lived from 1332 to 1406. 16. Jean de Joinville, “The Life of St. Louis,” in Memoirs of the Crusades, ed. M. R. R. Shaw (Hammondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1967), 198. De Joinville lived c. 1224–1317. 17. Lucille Roussin, “Archaeological Remains and the Evidence from the Mishnah,” in The World of Roman Costume, ed. Judith Lynn Sebesta and Larissa Bonfante (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1994), 182–90; Bernard Goldman, “Graeco-Roman Dress in Syro-Mesopotamia,” in The World of Roman Costume, ed. Judith Lynn Sebesta and Larissa Bonfante (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1994), 164–65. 18. Yedida Kalfon Stillman, Arab Dress from the Dawn of Islam to Modern Times: A Short History, ed. Norman Stillman (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 11–13. 19. Rubens, A History of Jewish Costume, 5–6. 20. De Joinville, “The Life of St. Louis,” 198. 21. Stillman, Arab Dress from the Dawn of Islam to Modern Times, 26–27. 22. Jennifer Scarce, Women’s Costume of the Near and Middle East (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 180–81. Recent events have brought the term burqa into the news in connection with Afghan women’s dress. The term is applied by some Afghanis to the sack-like, full-length veil worn as the outermost garment by women in public. However, this form of veil is also widely referred to as a chador or chadri.

38

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

23. Dawn Chatty, “The Burqa Face Cover: An Aspect of Dress in Southeastern Arabia,” in Languages of Dress in the Middle East, ed. Nancy Lindisfarne-Tapper and Bruce Ingham (Surrey: Curzon, 1997), 137–39. 24. Stillman, Arab Dress from the Dawn of Islam to Modern Times, 9–10. 25. Ibid., 10–11; and Ingham, “Men’s Dress in the Arabian Peninsula,” 48. 26. Ingham, “Men’s Dress in the Arabian Peninsula,” 41, 48–52. 27. Nicola Di Cosimo, Ancient China and Its Enemies: The Rise of Nomadic Power in East Asian History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 163–78; Richard M. Frye, “The Heritage of Central Asia from Antiquity to the Turkish Expansion,” in Princeton Series on the Middle East, ed. Bernard Lewis and Heath W. Lowry (Princeton, NJ: Markus Weiner, 1998), 178–80. 28. Mehmet Özel, Folklorik Türk Kiyafetleri (Turkish Folkloric Costumes) (Istanbul: Fine Arts Development Foundation of Turkey, 1992), 35. 29. Jirousek, “From ‘Traditional’ to ‘Mass Fashion System’ Dress among Men in a Rural Turkish Village,” 207–8. 30. Veronika Gervers, The Influence of Ottoman Turkish Textiles and Costume in Eastern Europe, vol. 4, History, Technology and Art Monograph (Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum, 1982), 3. 31. Ibid.; L. A. Mayer, Mamluk Costume (Geneve: Albert Kundig, 1952), 57–64. 32. O. G. de Busbecq, The Turkish Letters of Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, Imperial Ambassador at Constantinople, 1554–1562 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 64. 33. Nazan Tapan, “Sorguçlar (see Crests),” Sanat 3, no. 6 (1977): 99–107. 34. I. Kumbaracilar, Serpuslar (see Headgear) (Istanbul: Turkiye Turing ve Otomobil Kurumu Yayinevi, n.d.). 35. Stillman, Arab Dress from the Dawn of Islam to Modern Times, 16. 36. Mayer, Mamluk Costume, 65–66. 37. Francis Robinson, ed., The Cambridge Illustrated History of the Islamic World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 71–73. 38. Rubens, A History of Jewish Costume, 34–44; Goldman, “Graeco-Roman Dress in Syro-Mesopotamia,” 175–78. 39. Valerie Berinstain, “India,” in Asian Costumes and Textiles: From the Bosphorus to Fujiyama (Milano: Skira, 2001), 81–85. 40. Michel Rouche, “The Early Middle Ages and the West,” in From Pagan Rome to Byzantium, ed. Paul Veyne (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), 411–17. 41. W. B. Bartlett, God Wills It: An Illustrated History of the Crusades (Phoenix Mill, Gloucestershire: Sutton, 1999), 11–17. 42. Fernand Braudel, A History of Civilizations (New York: Penguin, 1994), 312–15. 43. Angus Konstam, Historical Atlas of the Crusades (New York: Checkmark, 2002), 27–45. 44. Norman F. Cantor, ed., The Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages (New York: Viking, 1999), 140. 45. Albert Hourani, A History of the Arab Peoples (Cambridge: Belknap, 1991), 29. 46. Cantor, The Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, 247. 47. G. W. Bowerstock, Peter Brown, and Oleg Grabar, eds., Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World (Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 1999), 680–81. 48. Hourani, A History of the Arab Peoples, 131. 49. Marshall G. S. Hodgson, The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization—The Expansion of Islam in the Middle Periods, vol. 2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), 262. 50. Hourani, A History of the Arab Peoples, 88. 51. Hans Eberhard Mayer, The Crusades, trans. John Gillingham (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 173–74.

Before the Ottoman Era, East and West

39

52. Agnes Geijer, “The Textile Finds from Birka,” in Cloth and Clothing in Medieval Europe: Essays in Memory of Professor E. M. Carus-Wilson, ed. N. B. Harte and K. G. Ponting (London: Heinemann Educational Books, The Pasold Research Fund, 1983), 80–99. 53. Mayer, The Crusades. 54. Abu Shama, “Kitab Al-Rawdatayn Fi Akhbar Al-Dawlatayn,” in The Muslim Discovery of Europe, ed. Bernard Lewis (New York: W. W. Norton, 1982), 26. 55. Mayer, The Crusades, 179. 56. Faruk Sumer, Yabanlu Pazari: Selcuklular Devrinde Milletlerarasi Buyuk Bir Fuar (see an Important International Fair During the Seljuk Period) (Istanbul: Turk Dunyasi Arastirmalari Vakfi, 1985), 11–24. 57. Kate Fleet, European and Islamic Trade in the Early Ottoman State: The Merchants of Genoa and Turkey, Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 29. 58. Francoise Pipponier and Perrine Mane, Dress in the Middle Ages (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997), 16, 32. 59. Alauddin Samarrai, “Arabs and Latins in the Middle Ages: Enemies, Partners and Scholars,” in Western Views of Islam in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, ed. Michael Frassetto and David R. Blanks, 137–45 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999), 137; Maxime Rodinson, Europe and the Mystique of Islam, trans. Roger Vernius (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1991), 5–12; Robert Irwin, For Lust of Knowing: The Orientalists and Their Enemies (London: Penguin, 2006), 20. 60. Mayer, The Crusades, 180. 61. Rodinson, Europe and the Mystique of Islam, 19. 62. Michel Pastoureau, The Devil’s Cloth: A History of Stripes and Striped Fabric, trans. Jody Gladding (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991), 7–16. 63. Davenport, The Book of Costume, 149. 64. Anna Muthesius, “Sicilian Silks,” in Textiles 5000 Years, ed. Jennifer Harris (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1993), 165. 65. Geijer, “The Textile Finds from Birka,” 99. 66. Stillman, Arab Dress from the Dawn of Islam to Modern Times, 124–36. 67. Rosamond E. Mack, Bazaar to Piazza: Islamic Trade and Italian Art, 1300– 1600 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), 56. 68. Joan Allgrove McDowell, “Early Islamic Textiles,” in Textiles 5000 Years, ed. Jennifer Harris, 80–85 (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1993). 69. Sumer, Yabanlu Pazari. 70. Pipponier and Mane, Dress in the Middle Ages, 116. 71. Ibn Jubayr, Abu’l Husayn Muhammad ibn Ahmad, The Travels of Ibn Jubayr (1183–5), trans. R. J. C. Broadhurst (London: Jonathan Cape, 1952). 72. Michael Batterberry and Ariane Batterberry, Fashion: The Mirror of History (New York: Greenwich House, 1977), 78, 82; Blanche Payne, Geitel Winakor, and Jane Farrell-Beck, The History of Costume (New York: HarperCollins, 1992), 166; Douglas A. Russell, Costume History and Style (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1983), 130; Davenport, The Book of Costume, 170. 73. Boucher, 20,000 Years of Fashion, 176–79. 74. Sumer, Yabanlu Pazari. 75. Boucher, 20,000 Years of Fashion, 174; de Villehardouin and de Joinville, Memoirs of the Crusades; Davenport, The Book of Costume, 105. 76. Alfred Franklin, Les Rues et Les Cris de Paris au XIII Siecle, vol. 3 (Paris: Leon William Paul Daffis, 1874), 42. 77. Madeline Ginsberg, The Hat: Trends and Traditions (New York: Barron’s, 1990), 26; Boucher, 20,000 Years of Fashion, 184. 78. Boucher, 20,000 Years of Fashion, 187; Pipponier and Mane, Dress in the Middle Ages, 127.

40

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

2

The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries Emergence of the Ottomans

The next era was a period of tragedy and upheaval, but in spite of great suffering a new prosperity would begin to alter European life. Like Chaucer’s pilgrims, more people began to travel long distances and bring back reports of their adventures to amaze those who stayed at home. A number of factors contributed to dislocation of the old feudal order. Expansion of commerce increased wealth for some, permitting both investment in trade and production but also promoting more ostentatious consumption. In the court of Burgundy in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the beginnings of a mass fashion system emerged as court dress was required to go through cycles of change that marked both the events of court life and the status of the participants. The wealth created largely through an expanding commercial system in which textile production played a central role helped generate a demand for mass fashion. New wealth would permit the emergence of a flamboyant and extravagant range of style changes. Concurrent with the expansion of domestic industries, trade with the East grew. In this period the emergence of the Ottoman Turkish dynasty challenged what remained of the Byzantine Empire, eventually absorbing the other Turkish domains in Anatolia, while the Turkic Mamluk Empire centered in Egypt extended its authority throughout much of the Arab Levant. The Moorish presence in Spain continued to be a significant conduit for Islamic awareness in Europe until the end of the fifteenth century. A mixture of Turkish, Arab, and Moorish characteristics would influence European dress in this period. Islamic dress generally continued to follow the patterns previously described with few changes.

European Dress During this period, the most important centers for fashion innovation were France, Burgundy, and Flanders, with Italy gaining importance in the

General Characteristics of Dress, 1320 to 1520

41

fifteenth century. Probably the most significant development in European garments was structural. In the early fourteenth century, a uniquely European method of constructing clothing known as tailoring was introduced, using curved seams and darts to fit a garment closely to individual bodies. It has been suggested that this development was an offshoot of the change

42

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

to plate armor from chain mail during the fourteenth century.1 The next step was the creation of padded garments to be worn under the armor. Conventional straight-seamed garments would produce folds and bunching of fabric that would chafe and bind under rigid plate. Therefore, the padded undergarment known as the pourpoint was developed. The smooth, body-conscious fit of this undergarment was soon adopted in more elegant materials for the outer garment (see fig. 2.1). The Eastern idea of open-fronted garments layered over other garments was introduced into European fashion via Italy late in the fourteenth century.2 For religious or scholarly dress or more formal purposes, men might wear a long, full gown. By the fifteenth century, this opened up down the front into an actual coat. These gowns and coats could have a variety of sleeve forms—long, short, full, narrow, and hanging—and might also have hoods attached. Such garments appeared in Italian fashion as early as the thirteenth century. Separate hoods, called capuchon, were worn as head coverings. As the fourteenth century progressed and fuller gowns became more common, richer materials and colors appeared with contrasting colors and materials used for linings. Sleeve or collar edges were often turned back to expose the contrasting lining, which might be a rich silk or fur. Similar gowns were worn by women, who wore them with snug belts. By the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries, the gowns became longer and the sleeves and trimming more elaborate. Irregular foliated or “dagged” edgings were added to or cut into sleeves and hems. For women the upper bodice of the gown became increasingly snug in fit, while the rich fabric of the skirt became so abundant that by the end of the fourteenth century a lady had to lift up her skirts to walk. By 1480–90 the skirt shortened, the belt widened to virtually form a corset, and the upper bodice and sleeves became even tighter. A more open neckline became the norm. Meanwhile younger men adopted the doublet as their outer garment, with wide shoulders tapering to slim waist, a short peplum, and hose tapering into the long, pointed shoes known as poulaines. Fashion thus evolved from tailoring that fit the body to tailoring that exaggerated parts of the body. Poulaines deserve more of a mention. The terms cracowe and poulaine first appear in the late fourteenth to mid-fifteenth centuries, respectively, and suggest a Polish origin for these long, pointed shoes. However, the origin of the form is not so clear; nor is it clear if these terms refer to all forms of pointed shoe or just the most extreme versions. Pointed shoes first appear in Europe in the twelfth century after the first Crusade. They seem to fade away a bit in the thirteenth century and then become wildly exaggerated in the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The long, pointed toe would appear to be an exaggerated variation on a type of shoe common in eastern Europe and the Middle East. The construction of the FrancoFlemish and English versions is somewhat different from known Middle Eastern equivalents. This difference is probably the result of shoemakers using familiar techniques to attempt to recreate something they most likely had not seen.

The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries

Facing, Figure 2.1. The performance of a Crusade play at a feast of King Charles V, Master of the coronation of Charles VI, Paris, c. 1375–80. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France. At least one of the figures defending the Muslim castle against the Crusader characters appears to be wearing a turban. The men in the foreground wear the pourpoint and long-toed poulaines, while the older, more noble, and religious gentlemen at the table wear longer, looser garments.

43

Right, Figure 2.2. Giovanni di Paolo (Giovanni di Paolo di Grazia), Paradise, 1445. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art. Facing top, Figure 2.3. Bridal procession, c. 1470–90. Istanbul, Topkapı Palace Museum Directorate. H2153, fol. 130a. Probably Akkoyunlu tabriz work, depicting Turkmen escorting a bride to her new home. Facing bottom, Figure 2.4. Giovanni Mansueti (1460– 1526), circle of Audience of Venetian Ambassadors in Damascus, oil on canvas, 175 × 210 cm. Formerly attributed to the school of Giovanni Bellini. Inv. 100. Paris, Louvre. (Photograph by Thierry Le Mage. Photo Credit: © RMN-Grand Palais/Art Resource, New York.) This image depicts the Mamluk court. Turkish heritage is dramatically signaled by the large and unusual headdresses worn by court officials, especially the distinctive horned headdress worn by the Mamluk sultan, seated to the right of the doorway, and the large asymmetrical turban worn by the mounted figure on the left. The other garments are more Turkish than Arab in form.

Islamic Dress

Another distinctive feature of dress throughout the late fourteenth and much of the fifteenth century was elaborate, flamboyant headgear. The exception was Italy, where clothing tended to be more relaxed in form and material, especially after 1490, when fuller, rounder forms came into vogue and Italian fashions would become more influential in France and elsewhere (see fig. 2.2).

Images of Turks, Moors, and Arabs in this period continued to depict the features of dress described in the previous chapter with few changes. Turks continued to wear trousers and layered coats (see fig. 2.3). Moors and Arabs mostly wore loose gowns or tunics, combined with loose, unfitted coats. Turbans were worn by Muslims of all origins, but elite Turkish turbans were more carefully structured (see fig. 2.4). Military and government functionaries might also wear various forms of tall and unusually shaped hats, frequently decorated with plumes and feathered crests as particular marks of heroism and status. Few images of women exist from this period, but those that can be found show garments that are similar in construction 44

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

to male garments. The main differences depicted are in the head coverings. Women might wear cylindrical or tall, pointed hats, but these hats were worn in combination with wrapped or draped veils (see fig. 1.17).

The later Gothic period would see dramatic events that would drastically change the Mediterranean world. In this period, Byzantium would cease to be the cultural apex of Western culture, a disaster that also released new creative forces in Europe. The attrition of Crusader holdings in the last half of the thirteenth century meant that many of the European survivors may The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries

Historical Context

45

have returned to their European homelands, bringing with them their lifestyles, goods, and acquired tastes. This returning group would have contributed to changes that began to occur in the fourteenth century. Those who stayed in the Middle East would have continued the growing east-west trade across the Mediterranean. At the same time, the Muslim adversary faced by Europeans would cease to be Arab or Moorish but would instead become Ottoman Turkish. Islam was beaten back in the Spain, but the new Ottoman power would emerge to present a far more serious threat in eastern Europe, creating a new awareness of Turkish culture. This awareness would affect dress very strongly in this period, as it also affected political, economic, and intellectual life. By the fourteenth century the Crusades had essentially come to an end.3 However, the commercial networks that the Crusades had stimulated would continue to expand. Meanwhile, other disasters eroded Western feudal structure. Beginning in 1337, the Hundred Years’ War decimated Europe, and the devastation of this war was further augmented by the arrival of the Black Death in 1348. The Black Death is believed to have begun in China in 1333. Ten years later, it had traveled across Asia to Crimea on the Black Sea, where it was alleged to have struck marauding Tartars besieging Genoese merchants in their colony at Tana, a gathering point for the trade in silks and furs. Before withdrawing, the Tartars are reported to have catapulted their corpses over the walls, infecting the merchants, some of whom died on the road home while others carried the plague to Constantinople, Genoa, Venice, and other ports. Although this account is not the whole story, it is likely that the plague reached the West via merchants who took multiple routes.4 In 1453, the Hundred Years’ War ended, and Constantinople fell to the Turks. The devastation of war and plague permitted a new consolidation of political and economic power in the period that followed, and a new prosperity emerged toward the end of the century as commerce and industry recovered. Population grew rapidly, which meant that young people dominated their societies by the end of the century. The Italian city-states, long the commercial and cultural intermediaries between Europe and the Levant, were the center from which a new intellectual attitude would emerge. Youthful new ideas merged with new knowledge and technology arriving from the East, particularly in the wake of the final collapse of Byzantium. The disruption of old feudal patterns permitted a level of experimentation in all areas that would have been unthinkable a century earlier. Meanwhile in the Middle East, the plague would continue to be a chronic problem through the nineteenth century. However, there were other sources of instability. The Turks had established rule throughout the region beginning in the tenth century under the Seljuk dynasty. But the Mongol invasions of the thirteenth century ended the Abbasid Caliphate and pushed Turkmen nomad tribes and other refugees into Byzantine Asia Minor. As the Mongols were pushed back at the end of the thirteenth cen46

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

tury, smaller Turkish principalities reclaimed much of Anatolia5 and much of what we now know as western Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Palestine.6 At the end of the thirteenth century, an emirate arose in northwestern Anatolia, near Bursa and very near the Christian Byzantine lands. It was the foundation of the Ottoman (Osmanli) state, named after its founder Osman, the first of a dynasty that would last until the twentieth century. The Osmanlis attracted adventurers and refugees from the Mongol invasions—mercenaries seeking loot and adventure and religious leaders seeking opportunities for conversions and expansion of territories. Osman and his descendants rapidly expanded their holdings during the fourteenth century, and in 1346 the Ottomans crossed the Dardanelles into Europe. During the fifteenth century, they would consolidate their holdings in Anatolia, conquer most of the Balkans, and capture Constantinople.7 Europeans were stunned by the loss of Constantinople, viewed widely as the last bastion of Rome. There were widespread calls for crusade against the Turks, with little effect.8 Islamic power now challenged Christendom from both the Moorish West and the Ottoman East—a threat far more immediate than the distant occupation of the Holy Land that aroused the religious fervor of the first Crusade. However, by the fifteenth century Christendom was not the monolith it had been. As emerging European nation states struggled to consolidate their power, religious and political authority became less unified. Increasing contacts with Muslims had gradually resulted in a more realistic grasp of Islam as a religion and as a polity. The Church continued to preach against Islam as the work of the devil, and popular lore continued to spread outlandish tales of Muslim beliefs and practices. But European policy makers saw the confrontation with the Turks in eastern Europe as something to manage in terms of military and economic policy, with theology being less of a genuine motivation for them and more of a useful propaganda instrument.9 Following the Ottoman conquest, Constantinople was largely abandoned. Sultan Mehmet II, titled Fatih (the Conqueror), undertook to repopulate his new capital through a combination of persuasion and coercion. Craftsmen and workers from other parts of his realm were forcibly relocated to the city. He also offered commercial incentives to bankers, merchants, and craftsmen such as silk weavers, who were mostly Greek, if they would return and take up their trade again. He also sought to encourage the return of European trading communities, offering to return goods abandoned by those who had fled, and providing favorable terms of trade to entice others. The Italian merchant families that were induced to return and settle in Galata, across the Golden Horn from Constantinople, would found commercial dynasties that remained influential in Turkey into the twentieth century. In the centuries to come trading communities of French, English, Dutch, and others would come to occupy neighborhoods on the hill of Galata, also known as Pera. Although Muslim Turks were the largest component of the population from the time of the first census in 1477 to the present, the city always had The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries

47

a decidedly multinational character.10 Large communities of Greek, Armenian, and Jewish Ottoman citizens lived in the city, as well as Bulgarians, Serbs, Arabs, and Persians, and others. Prominent Greek and Armenian merchant and banking families also became important servants of the sultan as envoys, administrators, and go-betweens with the foreign communities. The multinational character of the city was its hallmark; all were viewed as citizens of the Ottoman Empire and for the most part came to view themselves as such.11 At this time, Ottoman liberality toward ethnic and religious diversity compared well with European treatment of dissenters, to the point where it was not unheard of for European cities and even whole regions, particularly those of the Eastern Orthodox faith, to welcome Ottoman invaders, preferring Muslim rule to that of Catholic monarchs.12 In 1492, the Moors were driven from their last Spanish stronghold in Granada, and Spain also expelled its Jewish population. Many of these Sephardic Jews were welcomed by the Ottomans and became a stable and successful component of Ottoman society. Under Ottoman protection, they maintained and expanded their existing European commercial networks.13 Venice alternated between war with the Ottomans and the pursuit of peaceful trade as Venetians competed with the Turks for naval dominance in the Mediterranean. Ottoman emissaries and merchants became an increasingly common sight in Venice and the other Italian merchant states. Prince Jem, the younger brother of Sultan Bayezid II, failed in his challenge for the throne and fled to Rhodes, still under the control of the Christian Knights of Rhodes—one of the last Crusader kingdoms. He became a diplomatic pawn in the hands of Christian princes and was eventually to die in Naples in 1495. This Ottoman prince and his retinue lived in Italy for thirteen years.14

Trade

The fourteenth century saw expansion of the Italian trade with the East. The classic routes by which Far Eastern goods reached Italian merchants were via the Caspian Sea and Black Sea to Constantinople, through Persia to Aleppo and Tripoli, or via the Red Sea to Alexandria.15 The Genoese port of Caffa in the Crimea was an important terminus of the northern route until its capture by the Turks in 1475. Foça in northwestern Anatolia was a key Genoese colony that was the primary European source of the dye mordant alum, which was mined there. However, Foça was also lost to the Ottomans in 1455, leaving control of this important trade in Ottoman hands.16 Those losses were a major blow to Genoese commercial interests. The trading colony of Ragusa (Dubrovnik) survived the Ottoman conquest of Bosnia (1463) and Herzegovina (1482), although it was reduced to total dependence on Ottoman goodwill. The Ragusans were very useful to the Ottomans as an economic link between the Balkan economy and Europe and were, therefore, allowed to pay tribute and continue their commerce.

48

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Ragusa was also the starting point for caravans that conducted European envoys to Constantinople. In this period, the Mamluks still held the crucial entrepot at Alexandria, which remained the primary point of access to the trade with India and Persia via the Red Sea. Cotton, silk cloth, spices, soap, dyes, wax, dates, paper, and glass were among the many luxuries to be obtained in Alexandria. In exchange, the Europeans brought hides, leather, and metals.17 The period term “spices” included medicinal herbs and materials associated with the dyeing and finishing of textiles. Turkish silk, cotton, carpets, and wool hides were also important export commodities in the fourteenth century and after.18 The Ottoman ports were also the source of silk and cotton traded from further east with Persian silk being of particular interest. This trade included both silk yarn and cloth (see fig. 2.5). England made few attempts to participate directly in the Levant trade but was nonetheless part of the international trade network. Since after 1461 the code of Mehmed II stipulated the amount of customs duty to be levied on kerseys, English cloth, English broadcloth, and London cloth, we know that English wool was already being used to clothe the sultan’s official household.19 Throughout much of this period, English wool was exported to Flanders either as fleece or increasingly as finished cloth.20 A portion of this production was then sold to Italian merchants, who carried it to the Muslim ports of the eastern Mediterranean.21 Via the return route, the luxury goods of the East became available as far as England. Even a century earlier, the prosperous citizen of London could be found wearing a gown of Turkish camlet, perhaps dyed with colors from India, and trimmed with Russian fur. In his house might be rugs from Turkey, and his daughter and wife might prize gowns of Eastern silk. His shoes might be made of Spanish leather, and on his table might be spread wines from Bordeaux or Crete, served in glassware from Venice or Alexandria, while his food would be flavored with the spices of India and beyond. His physician might prescribe drugs from Egypt or India. All of this and more would reach the English shore via foreign ships, usually Flemish, which had acquired these goods from Genoese or Venetian traders.22 Camlet was a particularly prized textile. At this time it was composed entirely of mohair, unique to Anatolia, the only region where the mohair goat could be found. A letter to John Paston dated 1471 lists a number of purchases requested for the wardrobe of his brother, which included “3

The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries

Figure 2.5. Pourpoint of Charles de Blois, 14th century. Musée des Tissus et des Arts décoratifs de Lyon, MT 30307. This is the oldest surviving example of a tailored garment. It was preserved as a relic when Charles de Blois was canonized after his death in 1364. The fabric is a weftpatterned lampas weave on a satin ground of silk and gold thread. It is believed to have been woven in southeastern Asia Minor. At this time, pattern-woven silk textiles would have been imported from the Muslim world and were exceedingly rare and costly.

49

Figures 2.6a and b. Modern production of camlet, southeastern Turkey. (Photographs by author.) This weaver is making 100 percent mohair cloth, still made in the region of Şırnak as late as 2012 in southeastern Turkey and across the border in northwestern Iraq. The luxury cloth was known as camlet to medieval English merchants and as sof to Ottomans in the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries. The fiber was known in Ottoman Turkish as tiftik, as it still is in modern Turkish.

yards of purple camlet at 4s. a yard.”23 Eventually European merchants began exporting yarn and fiber rather than cloth to supply their own weavers. Camlets were subsequently made of a blend of silk and mohair, as demand exceeded supply and because European weavers could not figure out how to successfully weave a 100 percent mohair cloth when mohair yarn and fiber were bought for European looms (see fig. 2.6a and b). Such blends were also referred to as grogram, another highly sought Anatolian textile.24 The push for discovery of new routes to the spices and silks of the East was substantially motivated by the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453 and made possible by Islamic inventions of aids to navigation acquired by Europeans during the early fifteenth century. The Ottoman expansion throughout all of the eastern Mediterranean and North Africa and the Black Sea ports of the Crimea meant they controlled all access points to the Eastern trade. Thus, political relations with the Ottomans became a vacillation between military confrontation and diplomatic efforts to achieve trade agreements. However, once Vasco da Gama reached India via the Cape of Good Hope in 1497–98, he had established a route that would ultimately evade the Muslim eastern Mediterranean ports in the later seventeenth century and result in a loss of economic power for Venice and others who had dominated the older Mediterranean routes.25

Exchanges of Cultural Ideas: Literature, Humanities, and the Arts

Among the first travelers’ books to achieve wide circulation was The Voyages and Travels of Sir John Mandeville (1300–1372). Although it was clear that Mandeville (a pseudonym) invented much of his supposed travels and also borrowed from the writings of others, his work was important in terms of its impact on European perceptions of the East. It was written in Norman but was eventually translated into many other languages, with over

50

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure 2.7. Bernhard von Breydenbach, Peregrinatio in Terram Sanctam, Turkish military band, hand-painted wood block print, 1486. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum. This illustration by Erhard Reuwich is found in the first printed travel book by von Breydenbach. Reuwich traveled with the author in 1483– 84. The illustrations accurately depict forms of dress he observed, among other subjects.

three hundred complete manuscripts produced—an exceptional number of copies of a work prior to the advent of moveable type.26 This book introduced the allure of exotic places not only as pious destinations for pilgrims but also places for adventure and profit. The publication of The Travels of Marco Polo, written at the beginning of the fourteenth century, provided a somewhat more accurate understanding of the Near East and much that lay beyond. With the advent of the printing press, the travel book would come into its own. The first illustrated travel book ever printed, the Peregrinatio in Terram Sanctam by Bernhard von Breydenbach, recorded a journey through Ottoman lands to the pilgrimage sites of the Holy Land. Thus began a long European literary fascination with the East (see fig. 2.7). The fall of Constantinople resulted in a flood of immigrants to Europe. The influx of new ideas they brought with them included classical manuscripts carried by Byzantine Greeks, who also brought their skills and technologies—notably textile technologies. As the new Ottoman Empire took shape and channels of commerce were reestablished, the flow of new ideas also included more Oriental sources of information, technology, and aesthetics. In Italy, architectural innovation was one of the Eastern introductions most evident from an early time and nowhere more so than in Venice.

The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries

51

Figure 2.8. Gentile Bellini, Portrait of Sultan Mehmet II, 1480. London, National Gallery. This is one of the few portraits of any Turkish sultan believed to have been done from life.

Since the wealth of Venice was largely built on the Levant trade, it is no surprise that the city is filled with forms of Islamic architecture. Such details are everywhere, in the simple altana or rooftop terraces common all over the Mediterranean, the gloriously Byzantine Basilica of St. Mark, and the architectural detailing and complex geometric patterning of brickwork in the facade of the Ducal Palace.27 Sultan Mehmet  II, “the Conqueror,” was an able administrator, well educated, and a patron of the arts. His patronage included Western artists, notably Gentile Bellini, who spent fifteen months at his court as a result of a request to the Doge of Venice to send him a good painter.28 Bellini painted one of the few surviving portraits of any Turkish sultan done from life (see fig. 2.8). The paintings and erotic murals he created in the Conqueror’s private palace chambers were either painted over or sold by his more conservative son, Bayezid II. Constanzo de Ferrara also visited Constantinople

52

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure 2.9. Albrecht Dürer, The Whore of Babylon from the Apocalypse series, 1498. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Rogers Fund, 1918. This image depicts a scene from the Book of Revelation. Artists who believed that current dress in the region was unchanged since biblical times often portrayed biblical subjects in Middle Eastern costume. Villains or unbelievers were most likely to be shown in Turkish dress, as is the case with three figures in the lower left. One wears the Turkish taç and turban, while the other wears the distinctive headgear of the Ottoman Janissary corps. Behind them, another figure wears a jacket with a row of buttons down the front and a spectacular set of plumes, all well-known features of Turkish dress.

and did a portrait of Sultan Mehmed that has survived.29 The work of these and other artists who were eyewitnesses in the courts of Ottoman Constantinople and in Mamluk Egypt provided source material for less welltraveled artists, eager to introduce true accuracy into their own works in accordance with the new celebration of realism in Renaissance painting. The works of Carpaccio and Mansueti show careful and reasonably accurate depictions of Turks and Arabs and their dress. In this period it was still generally assumed that the dress of current inhabitants of the Holy Land was unchanged since biblical times, and so it was common to carefully dress figures in religious paintings in Ottoman clothing in an attempt to provide the realism required by Renaissance taste. Albrecht Dürer did not travel east, but he did spend time in Italy, where he studied the work of artists who had made the journey. He may also have seen Ottoman merchants or envoys in the streets of Italian cities. Prints of his biblical scenes

The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries

53

showing Ottoman dress were distributed throughout northern Europe (see fig. 2.9). Artworks became a primary source of exposure to these exotic forms of dress for the wider European public. Theatrical performances continued to present popular conceptions of Muslim dress to the general public. Muslim characters and fantasies had been included in commedia dell’arte performances since the Crusades. In 1473 Pope Sixtus IV hosted an entertainment in which the intermezzo, described as a morisco, featured a comic skirmish between a Turkish ambassador and the king of Macedonia. The Farsa dell’ambascario del Soldano (Comedy of the Sultan’s Ambassador) by Iacopo Sannazaro was performed for Carnival before Duke Alfonso in Naples March 4, 1490.30

Borrowings in Dress

54

Buttons first appeared as a decorative element in the late thirteenth century in France, and by the fourteenth century the use of buttons as closures could be seen in men’s clothing although not usually in women’s dress. The introduction of tailoring required the use of this new closure device. The Charles de Blois pourpoint demonstrates the need for buttons as closures on a fitted tailored garment. The Islamic use of buttons to close coats was fully absorbed and adapted into European dress with a decidedly European tightly fitted tailored cut, as demonstrated by the Charles de Blois pourpoint (see fig. 2.5). In the mid-fourteenth century buttons were fashionable among English and French upper-class men. Frequently buttons were made of jewels or precious metals to distinguish Christian buttons from their Islamic prototype.31 Sumptuary laws of Edward III in 1362 forbade yeomen and craftsmen from using buttons, and it would be the nineteenth century before button closures were commonplace on women’s clothing. In this period most garments still pulled over the head, and ties or pins were used as closures. The row of buttons seen on sleeves in the early fourteenth century also suggests a possible origin for the tippets that soon became fashionable. Narrow-buttoned sleeves were common in Turkish use. The sleeve buttons were not necessary to put the garment on, but in hot weather the buttons could be opened to bare the lower arm, leaving the sleeve pendant from the elbow, like a tippet. Of course, tippets became quite extreme as a fashion, so eventually function was lost (see fig. 2.13). At the end of the fourteenth century in France the caban appeared, a front-opening coat derived from the Eastern kaftan, with overlapping fronts. This was the first truly French example of a coat.32 Caftans had appeared a century earlier in Italy, and by the end of the fifteenth century any long open coat might be termed a turcha (see fig. 2.10).33 In this period the fashion for furs reached new heights. Fur-lined pelisses were a luxurious form of outerwear that first began to enter Western fashion during the early Crusades. The most prestigious robes of honor (hi’lat) presented to envoys in Muslim courts were lined with fur. The furs were mostly imported from north of the Black Sea in Russia.34 The preferred point of access to the Russian trade was through the Black Sea, at Tana and Caffa in the Crimea, Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure 2.10. Vittore Carpaccio (1455–1525), Farewell of the Ambassadors from the Legend of Saint Ursula, 1495, 280 × 253 cm. Venice, Gallerie dell’Accademia. (Photo Credit: Scala/Art Resource, New York.) Although coats are documented in Italy as early as the thirteenth century, it is not until the fifteenth century that Italians commonly wore them. By this time, the term turcha had come to refer to any long, front-opening coat. Of the two ambassadors’ rich formal coats, at least one is clearly fur lined, as was common with the ceremonial coats given to envoys by Muslim rulers.

which after 1475 were in Ottoman hands along with all access to the Black Sea. Eastern luxuries were equated with elegance, suggesting perfections of sensibility and refinement that matched the beauty of the objects. They also indicated wealth and status because the best patterned silks of Italy, Spain, and the East were still expensive rarities available only to the most elite until the latter half of the fifteenth century.35 Sleeve effects became increasingly striking later in this period and were extremely varied. As longer gowns came into vogue in the fourteenth century, particularly for older men, they developed various arrangements of layered sleeves that permitted a closely fitted undersleeve, often long and wrinkled and pushed up, possibly with a funnel-like cuff turned back to show a contrasting lining. Both features were common to Turkish, Persian, and Central Asian coat sleeves even before the Islamic period. However, the original versions were detachable and could be worn, buttoned completely or partly to the armscye, or removed, depending on temperature and layering choices (see fig. 2.11). European examples often give the effect of the Turkish hanging sleeve without the practical logic in construction with the arm emerging from long vertical slits in the hanging sleeve (see The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries

55

Figure 2.11. Bayezid II, portrait from sixteenth-century manuscript, H 1563, “The Genealogy of the Ottoman Sultans.” Istanbul, Topkapı Palace Museum Directorate. This illustration shows a very long and narrow sleeve that could be worn, buttoned up to the armscye, or removed, depending on temperature and whether the coat was being worn over or under other coats.

Figure 2.12. Detail of a miniature of Edward IV enthroned, wearing the order of the Golden Fleece, receiving the book from Jean Wavrin. Netherlands, S. (Bruges). In two of these sleeve examples, a long, vertical opening is cut, beginning just below the armscye seam. This slit allows the arm to emerge in the center of the sleeve or at the cuff, giving the general effect of the Turkish hanging sleeve but without the practical logic in construction.

fig. 2.12). The oversleeves might also be wide, and either long or short, but designed to reveal the snugly fitted undersleeve of the coat or pourpoint as well as their own lining. However, the full sleeve gathered to a cuff, known as a bag sleeve, is a distinctively European variant of this fondness for extravagant sleeves and remained in vogue until the mid-fifteenth century. Although most of these long gowns did not open down the front in the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries, many resemble the Turkish kaftan in silhouette as well as in the sleeves. However, many women’s skirts and men’s gowns show slits center front and sometimes at the sides from the mid-fourteenth century (see fig. 2.13). However, in this period the most dramatic innovation in European dress is the appearance of an array of remarkable headgear.36 Prior to the later Middle Ages, head coverings tended to be functional for the most part—hoods and hats for protection from the elements or veils for modesty. Such articles were interesting but not remarkable features of European costume, and apart from royal crowns or military helmets, headgear did not tend to be of great importance as a marker of status. All this changed in the fourteenth century, and the changes closely parallel changes that were occurring in relation with the Muslim world, notably the transition from the preeminence of Mamluk Egypt as a center of The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries

57

Figure 2.13. Surgeon Conducting a Trephination, Guy of Pavia’s Anatomia, c. 1345, tempera colors on parchment. Chantilly, Musée Condé, Château de Chantilly (Ms. 334). (Photo Credit: © RMN-Grand Palais/Art Resource, New York.) The surgeon’s red undersleeves appear to be buttoned on the underside of the arm, and the pale oversleeve has a section that hangs free from the elbow, known as a tippet. It looks too short to button up, and the patient’s tippets appear too long, so it seems that neither was functional.

trade and contact with Muslims to that of the Ottoman Turks, who would finally conquer the Mamluks in 1516–17.37 Also, since the craft of feltmaking seems to have arrived in Europe from the East, it might follow that some of the early forms of felted hats might have arrived with it. Muslim headgear had great variety. Because of the requirement that the head should be covered during daily prayers, covering the head at all times became the norm. Also the necessity of touching the forehead to the ground for prayer precluded hats that had wide brims (see fig. 2.14). The wrapped turban became a widespread indicator of Muslim affiliation, even in countries where the wearing of more structured head coverings had been the norm prior to conversion. European depictions had since the first Crusade recognized the turban as the primary feature of Islamic dress. 58

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure 2.14. Nomad campsite (detail), Central Asia, probably Tabriz, late 15th century. Istanbul, Topkapı Palace Museum Directorate, H2153, fol 8b. The characteristic taç is shown here without a turban wrapped over it. Note also the horizontal braid closures on the coat.

Between 1380 and 1450 turbans became an obviously Eastern feature of European dress. Although the turban had long been known in Europe, in this period they became ubiquitous. The forms that fall into this category include the chaperon, roundlet, and a variety of true wrapped turbans. The chaperon is typically described as a wrapped arrangement that evolved from the capuchon—a collared hood that in the thirteenth century developed a long tail that hung from the point of the hood, called a liripipe. The chaperon was initially structured as if the face opening of the capuchon had been placed on top of the head, and the liripipe was wrapped around the whole arrangement with the collar fabric sticking up and out in various directions (see fig. 2.15). What is not usually explained is why anyone would have thought to do such a thing. Since everyone was aware at this time of Muslim turbans as an exotic prototype of headgear, it seems reasonable to suggest that the chaperon’s arrangement was probably intended as a sort of parody of the turban. In due course these forms were stitched into place to form a headdress with protruding ends of fabric that draped about the face, which was more convenient to wear and more in keeping with European preferences for constructed clothing. The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries

59

Figure 2.15. Limbourg Brothers, Les Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry, January (detail), 1413–16, ink on vellum. Chantilly, Musée Condé. (Photo Credit: © RMNGrand Palais/Art Resource, New York.) This famous book of hours is known for its detailed portrait of everyday life in a great early fifteenth-century estate. This image depicts New Year festivities, presided over by the Duke of Berry. It can be assumed that everyone is dressed in their best. These figures wear extraordinarily ornamented capuchons, very turban-like. The red one to the left is tied similarly to the Campin portrait in figure 2.19. The bright blue one in the center shows the dagged tail of the capuchon wrapped around the lower face. The contrasting edging on the light blue capuchon in the upper right is interesting: compare to the oya edging in figure 2.34. Figure 2.16. Detail of “Muhammad with Disciples and an Angel,” Mir’ājnāme (Book of Ascension), Tabriz, c. 1360–67. Album H.2154, f. 107a. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France. This style of turban is from the pre-Savafid period in Tabriz. It was also worn in Arab and North African regions during this period and later. The long tails left trailing over the shoulders can also be seen hanging down the front on a trio of Mamluk figures in the center of Audience of Venetian Ambassadors in Damascus in figure 2.4.

Figure 2.17. Giovanni di Niccolo Mansueti, three episodes from the Life of St. Mark (detail), early 16th century. Venice, Galleria dell’Accademia (Cameraphoto Arte, Venice/Art Resource, New York). St. Mark spent his last years in Cairo, and the artist has depicted the dress of the early sixteenth-century Mamluk court there. Note the sultan’s horned turban and the long trailing ends on the courtiers’ bulbous turbans. On a distant balcony to the left are seated women wearing tall, flat-topped hats under their white veils.

The chaperon, with its draped liripipe and protruding folds of fabric, most closely resembled the turban form seen in thirteenth- and fourteenthcentury miniature paintings from Shia Persia or Arab Baghdad as well as in depictions of North African and Andalusian Moors. These turbans were wrapped around the head with varying degrees of care, but the most distinctive feature was the long end of turban cloth that hung down and might be looped across the shoulders (see figs. 2.4, 2.16, and 2.17).38 Turbans of this type were also depicted in images of Moors or Arabs created by Europeans in this period. The casually wrapped turbans of Turkish foot soldiers and peasants bore a resemblance to the chaperon in that they were simply scarves twisted into a rough roll and bound around the base of a hat with edges and tails allowed to hang out in a haphazard manner (see fig. 2.18). However, these casual turbans may be better compared with the more substantial wrapped

The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries

61

Figure 2.18. Murder of Ma’şūm Beg (from Sehnāme-ı Selim Hān dated January 12, 1581, Nakkas Osman Album) Istanbul, Topkapı Palace Museum Directorate. This image includes many turban styles, both casual and formal. The extreme styles include the turban on the man in the center left with a simple bit of cloth tied around his taç, the courtly turban with a tall, red spike falling off the head of the central man, and also the turban worn by the man in red just below.

European turbans that appear occasionally in the early fifteenth century (see fig. 2.19). Fifteenth-century Turkish turbans generally lacked the characteristic trailing ends typical of the earlier Moorish or Arab style. Headgear for court officials varied in form and size, with each style of wrapping and foundation hat mandated to mark the rank and occupation of the wearer (see fig. 2.20). Turban wrapping was a specialized occupation. The formal Ottoman turban resulted in a smooth, full, round shape with a silhouette more like that of the roundlet that came into favor in the fifteenth century after the disappearance of the fanciful chaperon and liripipe (see figs. 2.21 and 2.22). This shift coincided with the conquest of Constantinople in 1453. The excess fabric of the headdress was now likely to be wrapped over the roundlet, increasing its resemblance to the Ottoman turban. The roundlet was worn by both men and women in Europe, even though the corresponding Islamic turban was worn mainly by men. It has been suggested that 62

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure 2.19. Robert Campin, Portrait of a Man and a Woman. c., A Man about 1435, oil with egg tempera on oak, 40.7 × 28.1 cm. London, National Gallery. (Photo Credit: © National Gallery, London/Art Resource, New York.) This painting is the clearest example of a European wrapped turban with no sign of the constructed form a capuchon would have at this date. This is one of a pair of paintings assumed to be husband and wife, probably a wealthy couple from Tournay, Belgium, where Campin worked.

Renaissance dress exoticism was an attempt to duplicate elements of classical dress (in this instance, a reference to Roman laurel crowns of honor) yet, as we have already seen, the established canon for representation of classical or biblical (i.e., Near Eastern) settings had long included depictions of accessories, especially turbans, and garments of contemporaneous Muslim inhabitants of formerly Roman biblical lands (see figs. 2.23, 2.24, and 2.25). Since Arab gowns resembled the classical robes seen in surviving sculpture, it seemed logical at the time to assume that the current dress was what would have been seen in biblical times. The roundlet continued to be seen in Italy until the 1530s when the Ottoman threat to Europe reached a crescendo. The two-horned headdress (bourellet) particularly seen in France and Flanders in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries bore a striking The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries

63

Right, Figure 2.20. Eyüp ve Salman Genç Hükumdarin Huzurunda, Külliyat, 1450– 60 (detail). Istanbul, Topkapı Palace Museum Directorate. Detail of a court scene showing mandated headgear associated with court rank and duties. The turbans are wrapped in a controlled form typical for Ottomans, with taçs of various colors. On the left are two janissaries with their distinctive white felt börkler. Facing left, Figure 2.21. Portrait of Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror, c. 1480, gouache and gilt on paper, Ottoman palace school. In album H.2153, f. 145b, 25 × 22 cm. Istanbul, Topkapı Palace Museum Directorate. Considered the best surviving portrait of Sultan Mehmed, this work is related to a bronze portrait medallion executed by Costanzo da Ferrera in 1481. The profile portrait style was fashionable in fifteenth-century Europe, and the sultan took a strong interest in European portraiture. Facing right, Figure 2.22. Profile Portrait of a Lady, c. 1410, Franco-Flemish 15th century. Washington, DC, National Gallery of Art. The similar pose of this painting and that of Sultan Mehmed II (see fig. 2.21) makes the similarity of the headgear even more striking. Both are composed of ropelike coils of cloth constructed over a hat of similar size. Although the sultan’s portrait was much later, very similar turbans may be seen in much earlier Muslim paintings (see figs. 1.6 and 2.18).

64

resemblance to the distinctive styles of official Mamluk headgear (see figs. 2.4, 2.17, and 2.25). At the end of the fourteenth century a variety of padded, bilateral headpieces came into fashion that lifted out and up on either side of the head (see fig. 2.26). These amazing and unprecedented European headdresses bore a striking resemblance to some of the horned forms then worn at the Mamluk court in Egypt. The unique forms of Mamluk court headgear were documented in paintings by a number of artists, including several works by Bellini, Mansueti, and Carpaccio.39 The Mamluks were Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure 2.23. Detail of a miniature of Sultan Bajazet (Bayezid) receiving the ransom for the Comte de Nevers. Netherlands, S. (Bruges). Master of the Harley Froissart between c. 1470 and 1472, Harley 4380, f. 118 (artwork © The British Library). This French artist depicts hearsay stereotypes to signal whether individuals in this image are Muslim or not. The two Muslims are shown in tall hats with a roll of fabric around the base—a fair visual translation of verbal descriptions of Turkish turbans, but no real match to any of those in figure 2.18. The sultan is also shown wearing a hanging sleeve in a contrasting color to his robe, constructed somewhat differently from the hanging sleeves then in fashion in Europe. To clarify his distinctions, the artist has not shown any of the Frenchmen in hanging sleeves or tall hats, though both were European fashion options at the time.

Figure 2.24. Rogier van der Weyden (c. 1399–1464), Adoration of the Magi, c. 1455, central panel of a triptych (St. Columba Altarpiece) detail, oil on oak, 139.5 × 152.9 cm. Inv. WAF 1189. Munich, Alte Pinakothek. (Photo Credit: bpk Bildagentur/Art Resource, New York.) This is one of the three kings come to worship the infant Christ. As was increasingly the case since the Crusades, the artist chose to use features of contemporary Muslim dress on this pre-Muslim Middle Eastern character, blended with fashionable details of European contemporary dress. The extravagant sleeves fall open like extremely wide tippets and are embellished with an unusual white border with a fine irregular edge. The opulent gold and red brocade was made in Italy by this date but it was also associated with Eastern (Byzantine or Muslim) production of the recent past. His headgear is a constructed roundlet with a long streamer of fabric—in short, a turban. However, his short garment and hose are decidedly European.

themselves a dynasty of Turks, formerly slave-mercenaries in the service of the caliphate. Although none of these artists visited Egypt, they did have access to eyewitness images of Mamluk dress and architecture. These distinctive forms were features of Mamluk ceremonial headgear as early as the thirteenth century.40 Further evidence of the likelihood of an Islamic origin for these forms is the fact that a number of paintings of the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries used bilaterally horned and unusually tall hats, in addition to turbans, as indicators of Near Eastern identity.41 Headgear seen in some Italian and German portraits also resembled certain Mamluk court turbans (see fig. 2.27a and b). The fashion for these forms faded when in the later fifteenth century Ottoman conquests first weakened Mamluk power and strategic position in the Eastern trade and eventually ended Mamluk rule in 1517.42 Often we are left to find written descriptions of past fashion in the writings of those who deplore it. In 1371–72 Geoffrey IV de la Tour Landry wrote 66

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure 2.25. Cesare Vecellio, Of Costumes, Ancient and Modern, of Different Parts of the Worlds, 1590. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département estampes et photographie. The bicorne headdress on the right differs from anything seen in the previous figures. However, this book of costume images was published over seventy years after the Mamluk Empire fell to the Ottomans, and this image was apparently derived from an earlier source.

a book for the moral education of his two daughters. Among his essays were several that pointed out the follies of fashion. The best known of his examples is one of the few literary references to the bourellet. Landry presents his commentary on the sermon of an unnamed bishop who had preached against the bicorne bourellet then in fashion: “Women that were so horned were lyche to be horned snailes and hertis and unicornes . . . and the woman with her hornes mocketh God. . . . For whanne they come to the chirche, and holy water be caste on hem, . . . I doubte that the devill sitte not between her hornes, and that he make hem bow down for fere of the holy water.”43 The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries

67

Right, Figure 2.26. Wedding feast, c. 1470–80. This banquet scene shows a variety of tall hats: the pointed hennins worn by the two older women flanking the bride who wears an elaborate bicorne headdress. Some of the men’s hats also have significant height including the one at left in a blue “sugarloaf ” hat (see also figs. 2.18 and 3.6c). Note also the extremely long poulaines. Facing left, Figure 2.27a. German (Swabian) School, Portrait of a Woman of the Hofer Family, c. 1470, oil on silver fir, 53.7 × 40.8 cm. Presented by Queen Victoria at the Prince Consort’s wish, 1863 (NG722). London, National Gallery. (Photo Credit: © National Gallery, London/Art Resource, New York.) The form of this headpiece resembles both Ottoman and Mamluk court turbans, particularly the Mamluk turbans with long trailing ends.

68

Landry also cautioned his daughters that new fashions should be avoided until everyone in the community had accepted them, since what was new was by definition foreign and thus morally tainted. There is, of course, an obvious link that would come to mind between a horned headdress and the image of the horned devil, and such an idea would be quite enough to cause religious indignation. Landry’s further link of foreignness with evil could compound this indignation. If the preacher who spoke against horned headdresses recognized their association with a Muslim prototype, how much more might he feel the need to denounce such an exhibition of fashion drawn from the realm of the Islamic antichrist, the infidel devil incarnate. A distinctive and well-known form of headdress in Northern Europe between the 1430s and 1480 was the vertical hennin. The term “hennin” is actually first found as a name for this item well after its popularity had passed from fashion, in the sixteenth-century Annales de Bourgogne, where the term was used to describe this fashion for vertical brimless headdresses in the fifteenth century (see fig. 2.28). In her book on Ottoman dress Jennifer Scarce compares the tall, narrow hennin to an example seen in a Turkish miniature painting from c. 1450 (see fig. 1.16).44 Many other examples of tall headdresses can be seen including the unusual headdresses of Druze women from the mountains of northern Syria and Lebanon, that of Mongol women, and (allowing for cross-gender borrowings) the tall slender taç worn by Shiite Kizilbaş Turks of Persia in this period. However, the latter two would not have been as likely to be known to the West at this time, simply because of distance. There are as many forms of the hennin as there are tall headdresses of Middle Eastern women and men. The tall, narrow point of the headdress in Bellini’s late fifteenth-century drawing of Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

a Turkish woman (see fig. 2.29) clearly corresponds to the hennins seen in figure 2.26 or in Hans Memling’s Allegory of Love (1485–90). However, the flat-topped, cylindrical cap seen in Breydenbach’s plates of “Saracen” women (1486) or worn by a Turkish gentlewoman in Nicolay’s later costume album (see fig. 2.30) are comparable to the truncated hennins worn by women in other Flemish, French, and Burgundian portraits (see fig. 2.28). In addition, the tall hats worn by men in Northern Europe, sometimes referred to as sugarloaf hats (see fig. 2.26), correspond to the tall hats worn with and without the Turkish turban.45 The brim seen on many of the European versions is also sometimes seen on Ottoman and Persian hats.46 As we will see, tall brimmed hats of this type would have a revival at the end of the sixteenth century, a time when trade empires were built in the Levant. Another distinctive feature of dress in this period, particularly between 1390 and 1430, is a sudden proliferation of elaborate edgings on garments (see figs. 2.2 and 2.15 for previous examples). Some are pinked and dagged edges, but in many examples, the edgings appear to be separately constructed and then attached. Throughout this period, elaborate edgings are also frequently depicted when Muslim, particularly Turkish, costume is indicated (fig. 2.31). These decorative edgings are an interesting innovation that may have Eastern connections. In Two Tax Gatherers (see fig. 2.32), the men’s clothing resembles conventional dress of the time but their headgear is more unusual and seems to predate the apparent date of the painting. The type of headgear is also more often associated with women. In particular, the textile decoration of The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries

Right, Figure 2.27b. Geertgen Sint Jans, The Holy Kinship (detail), 1475–80. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum. This is Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist and kin to Mary, the mother of Jesus. She and her companion wear smooth, bulbous turbans. A long scarf is bound under her chin like a thirteenth-century European barbette or a Turkish woman’s headscarf. The ends trail over her shoulders like the ends of a Muslim turban. The gold decoration draped across the front resembles headdress jewelry worn by Turkish women.

69

Figure 2.28. Rogier van der Weyden (c. 1399–1464), Portrait of a Lady, c. 1460, oil on panel, painted surface 34 × 25.5 cm (13 3/8 × 10 1/16 in.), Washington, DC, National Gallery of Art, Andrew W. Mellon Collection (1937.1.44). (Photo Credit: Art Resource, New York.) This flat-topped hennin corresponds to cylindrical Muslim hats or taç. Note also the “sugarloaf ” hats in figures 2.26 and 3.6c and perhaps also the traditional Janissary börk.

the bicorne (read: devilish) and chaperon headgear of the greedy tax collectors are interesting since the edging, while carefully depicted, is very difficult to interpret in terms of technique. This image is allegorical, and the extreme headgear (out of fashion by the date of this painting) is intended as a caricature that will make the tax collectors look vain, foolish, and greedy. However, the texture shown does bear a relation to the headgear—and edgings—seen a century earlier as fashionable attire. At this time attached edgings such as lace were unknown in Europe, but these edgings do not appear to be merely pinking or fringe. Nor are they feathers or fur. Having spent years looking at Turkish textiles and costume from all periods, I can only say that these edgings remind me of nothing so much as the Turkish needle laces (igne oya) traditionally used to edge scarves, shirts, and other textiles. The structure is not exactly like oya, but then we may be looking at something that the painter might not know exactly how 70

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

to represent. In any case, the decoration is complex, like petals or leaves, sometimes not entirely solid looking, and appears to be a constructed decoration attached to the base fabric. What follows is speculation as to what this might mean; although the evidence is tenuous in the extreme, it is sufficiently tantalizing to be worthy of discussion. As we shall see from the travelers’ accounts that became more common in the sixteenth century, merchants often chose to wear local dress when traveling in Muslim lands to avoid hostile responses from local inhabitants unaccustomed to strangers. Although we have no equivalent references regarding dress habits for earlier periods, there is certainly no reason to believe that such a practice would have been any less wise in earlier times. Once travelers begin to write about dress they saw or wore, it may be assumed that their exotic travel clothes could be souvenirs from their experience. Thus, all or part of these wardrobes might come home, possibly to be incorporated into their regular wardrobe. Among the clothing used would be sashes or scarves. In Anatolia, in more recent times, scarves were used to form the casual peasant turbans made by wrapping a rolled scarf around the head over a brimless cap and often simply knotting it, with the ends hanging down or sticking out of the roll. These scarves might have macrame fringe, or attached needle lace edgings (known as igne oya, or simply oya) in the form of petals, leaves, or even three-dimensional flowers, although older known examples are often

Above, Figure 2.29. Gentile Bellini, Seated Woman, 1479–81 (artwork © Trustees of the British Museum). This drawing is from life. Bellini went to Constantinople in response to a request by Sultan Mehmet II. He painted the sultan’s portrait (fig. 2.8) and made many studies like this one of people he observed there. Bellini’s Constantinople works were probably a source for Venetian artists of the time. This woman’s tall, pointed hat strongly resembles the medieval European hennin. Left, Figure 2.30. Saracens. Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, American Colony in Jerusalem Collection. Note the obvious cylindrical, flat-topped hat under the woman’s veil, in relation to the flat-topped hennin that appears in the 1480s. Other artists at this time depict Saracen women in somewhat taller versions.

The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries

71

Figure 2.31. Martin Schongauer, Christ Carrying the Cross (German, Colmar c. 1435/50–1491 Breisach), c. 1475–80, engraving. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, The Sylmaris Collection, Gift of George Coe Graves, by exchange, 1935. Villains in this image of Christ’s suffering wear elements of Turkish dress. Note the pointed turban helmets at center and upper left (also see fig. 3.6b), the wrapped turban at right (among others), and decorative edgings and hanging sleeves on the coat at left center.

72

simple petal or leaf shapes. These edgings were worn in various ways by both men and women. When folded and rolled, they present their oya edgings as an overall texture of petals or flowers appearing over the surface of the headscarf (see figs. 1.14 and 6.1). Oya was also used in various times and places as a border on coats or shirt cuffs. Unfortunately, in terms of comparison there are no firmly datable examples of Turkish needle lace that can be attributed before the eighteenth century. However, there is a wonderful description of what sounds like oya to be found in the account of Fynes Moryson that may testify to the existence of oya at least as early as 1596–97 when he visited Istanbul.47 In describing the headdresses of women, he wrote that “They weave up their hair with curious knots . . . and decke the hair . . . with jewels and flowers of silke wrought with a needle.” The earliest evidence suggesting an early date for oya is an edging found on a stone sculpture of Seljuk Turkish female headdress dating to the thirteenth century (see fig. 2.33a and b). The shape of the edging in question resembles a modern example of oya from the author’s collection (see fig. 2.34), but of course the material and technique of a textile example seen in a thirteenth-century sculpture must remain conjectural, though intriguing. Finally, ongoing field research in Turkey indicates that the distribution of oya technique includes all parts of rural and urban Anatolia, particularly among nomadic or Turkmen communities. There is also some extension Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure 2.32. Marinus van Reymerswaele (1490/95–c.1567), Two Tax Gatherers, c. 1540, oil on oak, 92.1 × 74.3 cm. Wynn Ellis Bequest, 1876 (NG944). London, National Gallery. (Photo Credit: © National Gallery, London/Art Resource, New York.) The exceptionally complex edging is shown in great detail. The symbolism of the exotic dress is intended to signal a moral judgment on these characters as images of unChristian greed.

into eastern Greece, northern Syria, and the southern Balkans—all areas that were long under Ottoman rule. This universal distribution in Anatolia suggests that the technique is of long standing there. The only other localities where the oya technique, or something similar, has been reported appear to be isolated locations formerly part of the Ottoman Empire. The implication is that if Turkish needle lace was in use in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, as seems at least possible, the proliferation of dagged, pinked, and ruffled edgings evident in European fashion in this period, seen together with the previously discussed turbans and hanging sleeves, could suggest emulation of a poorly understood form of edge decoration used in Turkish textiles and dress. This might mean that the concepts of attached decorative edgings and manipulated thread edgings— though not the precise techniques—could have been derived from Ottoman sources along with other borrowings of dress features in this period. These forms might therefore have served as inspiration for the development of European needle lace beginning in the fifteenth century. Attached edgings turn up in early fifteenth-century European portraits all over Northern The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries

73

Figure 2.33a and b. Woman’s headdress with detail of ornamentation, Seljuk Turkish sculpture of a sphinx, 13th century. Istanbul, Turkish and Islamic Arts Museum. (Photographs by author.) This sphinx has a woman’s head and a lion’s body. It wears a headscarf with decorative elements suspended near the back lower left on the neck.

Europe, particularly in the Flemish regions heavily involved in the Eastern cloth trade (see fig. 2.35). These portraits show dress with fanciful borders on sleeves, hems, and on the edges of chaperons or turbans. Roundlets embellished with pinked edges were said to be “in the German style.”48 Germans were confronting Ottoman armies in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries in eastern Europe and in the Balkans. Also since in this period so many other major and minor pieces of knowledge, technology, and art were pouring into Italy, there is no reason to absolutely exclude the possibility of yet another arrival. If such edgings were seen and described by travelers or examples were brought back, seamstresses and tailors might have at first attempted to achieve the effect by pinking, ruffling, or dagging edges. However, as a weaver and craftsperson who has experimented with a wide range of textile techniques, I know what a good needlewoman might have done if her relaThe Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries

Figure 2.34. Scarves with traditional Turkish oya lace edging. (Photograph of author’s collection.) Oya is associated with both men’s and women’s costumes in every part of what is now Turkey and in adjacent areas that were once part of the Ottoman Empire. This photograph shows examples of these edgings from the author’s collection. Flower and leaf designs are common but oya is not always literally representational.

75

Figure 2.35. Follower of Rogier van der Weyden, Detail of John IV, Duke of Brabant, c. 1460–70, silverpoint drawing, early 15th century. Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans van Beuningen. This fanciful headgear edging seems to appear as a separate attached border of small, soft-looking decorative elements that give an irregularly shaped finish to an otherwise straight edge. The garment forms are the fashionable fur-lined houppelande and chaperon of the period. Note also the turban-like shape with long trailing ends.

tives returned from a trading voyage with a gift of cloth edged in such a strange and wonderful new way. I would have expected her to sit down and do her best to copy this wonder. In all likelihood, she would not have succeeded in duplicating the methods, but she would surely have found her way to create an equivalent wonder. Because there are many ways to create lace, the fact that some early Italian needle lace has dimensional features, like oya, is a further interesting coincidence. Unfortunately, all of this must remain speculation, pending the appearance of early datable examples of oya or equivalent documentation. Even that would only confirm the possibility of a relationship between oya and Italian needle lace. Nonetheless, the interest in elaborate edgings and bor76

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

ders coincided with an explosion of interest in Islamic headgear and other features of dress.

1. F. Pipponier and P. Mane, Dress in the Middle Ages (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997), 61–64. 2. Francois Boucher, 20,000 Years of Fashion (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1987), 203. 3. Bernard Lewis, The Muslim Discovery of Europe (New York: W. W. Norton, 1982), 24. 4. Philip Ziegler, The Black Death (New York: Alan Dutton, 1991), 3. 5. Daniel Goffman, The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 31–33. 6. Francis Robinson, ed., The Cambridge Illustrated History of the Islamic World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 45–47. 7. Halil Inalcik, The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age 1300–1600 (London: Phoenix Press, 2000), 6–22. 8. Nancy Bisaha, “‘New Barbarian’ or ‘Worthy Adversary?’ Humanist Constructs of the Ottoman Turks in Fifteenth Century Italy,” in Western Views of Islam in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Perception of Other, ed. Michael Frassetto and David R. Blanks (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999), 185–98. 9. Maxime Rodinson, Europe and the Mystique of Islam, trans. Roger Vernius (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1991), 21–31; Goffman, The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe, 185–86. 10. Philip Mansel, Constantinople: City of the World’s Desire, 1453–1924 (London: Penguin, 1995), 437. 11. Ibid., 7–14. 12. Goffman, The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe, 153; Rodinson, Europe and the Mystique of Islam, 35. 13. Mansel, Constantinople, 15–16, 414. 14. Goffman, The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe, 141; John Patrick Douglas Balfour Lord Kinross, The Ottoman Centuries (New York: William Morrow, 1977), 141, 161–63. 15. S. A. Skilliter, William Harborne and the Trade with Turkey, 1578–1582 (London: Oxford University Press, 1977), 4–5. 16. Daniel Goffman, Izmir and the Levantine World, 1550–1650 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1990), 58. 17. Kate Fleet, European and Islamic Trade in the Early Ottoman State: The Merchants of Genoa and Turkey, Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 24–26, 98–99, 102, 113–14. 18. Ibid., 30–31, 95–111; Halil Inalcik and Donald Quataert, An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1914 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 38. 19. Skilliter, William Harborne and the Trade with Turkey, 4–5. 20. Fernand Braudel, The Wheels of Commerce, vol. 2, Civilization and Capitalism 15th–18th Century (New York: Harper & Row, 1982), 448–49. 21. Inalcik and Quataert, An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 364. 22. Skilliter, William Harborne and the Trade with Turkey, 4–5; Norman F. Cantor, ed., The Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages (New York: Viking, 1999), 131. 23. Edmond Paston, “Edmond Paston II to John Paston III, 1471, 18 November,” in The Paston Letters: A Selection in Modern Spelling, ed. Norman Davis, 203–5 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 204. 24. Sonia P. Anderson, An English Consul in Turkey: Paul Rycaut at Smyrna, 1667–1678 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1989). Also, the first cargo that Harbourne arThe Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries

Notes

77

ranged following the English treaty in 1581 is “three tables [the wooden containers of the cloth] of white camlets (Skilliter, William Harborne and the Trade with Turkey, 137, quoting from doc.22a shipping instructions). An order written in 1582 requests “Grograins, Chabletts watred and unwatred” (Skilliter, William Harborne and the Trade with Turkey, 185–86). 25. Skilliter, William Harborne and the Trade with Turkey, 5. 26. Norman F. Cantor, ed., The Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages (New York: Viking, 1999), 296. 27. Deborah Howard, Venice and the East: The Impact of the Islamic World on Venetian Architecture, 1100–1500 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000). 28. Julian Raby, Venice, Durer, and the Oriental Mode (London: Islamic Art Publications, 1982), 20–22. 29. Mansel, Constantinople, 23. 30. Metin And, Turkiye’de Italyan Sahnesi; Italyan Sahnesinde Turkiye (Istanbul: Metis Yayinlari, 1989), 139–42. 31. Diana de Marly, Fashion for Men: An Illustrated History (London: B. T. Batsford, 1985), 16, 19. 32. Boucher, 20,000 Years of Fashion, 197–98. 33. Stella Mary Newton, The Dress of the Venetians, 1495–1525, vol. 7, Pasold Studies in Textiles (Brookfield, VT: Gower, 1988), 134. 34. Veronika Gervers, “Construction of Türkmen Coats,” Textile History 14, no. 1 (1983): 3; L. A. Mayer, Mamluk Costume (Geneve: Albert Kundig, 1952), 37– 64; Boucher, 20,000 Years of Fashion, 174. 35. Pipponier and Mane, Dress in the Middle Ages, 20–21. 36. Charlotte Jirousek, “More Than Oriental Splendor: European and Ottoman Headgear, 1380–1580,” Dress 22 (1995): 22–33. 37. Inalcik and Quataert, An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 20. 38. Mayer, Mamluk Costume, 13. 39. Raby, Venice, Durer, and the Oriental Mode, 66–72. 40. Mayer, Mamluk Costume, 13–17. 41. Millia Davenport, The Book of Costume (New York: Crown, 1965), 327. 42. Duncan Haldane, Mamluk Painting (Warminster: Aris & Philips, 1978), 1–3. 43. Knight of la Tour Landry, The Book of the Knight of La Tour Landry, trans. Thomas Wright, vol. 33, Early English Text Society (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1868), 62–63. 44. Jennifer Scarce, Women’s Costume of the Near and Middle East (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 45–47. 45. J. M. Rogers, F. Cagman, and Z. Tanindi, Topkapı: The Albums and Illustrated Manuscripts (London: Thames and Hudson, 1986), plate 12. 46. Ibid., plates 66, 96, and 107. 47. F. Moryson, An Itinerary Vvritten by Fynes Moryson Gent. First in the Latine Tongue, and then Translated by Him into English: Containing His Ten Yeeres Travell Throvgh the Tvvelve Domjnions of Germany, Bohmerland, Sweitzerland, Netherland, Denmarke, Poland, Italy, Turky, France, England, Scotland, and Ireland (London: J. Beale, 1617), 176. 48. Boucher, 20,000 Years of Fashion, 206.

78

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

3

The Sixteenth Century Reaching for the East

In Europe, the consolidation of royal power, religious divisions, war, and the Age of Discovery meant increased wealth, power, ambitions, and uncertainties. Sixteenth-century elite European dress reflected all of this, as clothes became a grand blustering facade of strength—the “Mannerist” style. This was also the period when the Ottoman Empire reached its golden age. It would never be defeated in battle throughout this period, and its borders would reach their greatest extent.

Despite considerable regional variety in sixteenth-century European dress, European interest in Turkish features of dress was visible almost everywhere. Emulation of the wealthy, intimidating, and exotic East was a fashion phenomenon. This fascination resulted in the assimilation of some important features of Turkish dress into the basic vocabulary of European fashion. From the Eastern perspective, since Ottoman power continued to expand in this period, Ottomans took little interest in anything that emanated from the infidel lands. Changes in their forms of dress were not substantial. Although they imported European textiles, traditional forms of dress were used to make the social order of Ottoman society visible to a degree beyond anything accomplished by European sumptuary law and were maintained by all social groups.

Characteristics of Dress: Emerging Fashion versus Stable Tradition

After 1510 the forms of fashionable dress in Europe would be increasingly dominated by the French, German, and English North, resulting in forms that were more rigid and stylized (see fig. 3.1). Slashing became a contrived and extremely elaborate form of surface ornamentation in which not the

European Dress in the Sixteenth Century

79

Figure 3.1. Remigius van Leemput, Henry VII, Elizabeth of York, Henry VIII and Jane Seymour, 1667. (Royal Collection Trust/© Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2017.) The contrast between the dress of these two generations of royal couples says much about their different political circumstances. The relatively relaxed poses of the earlier king and queen and the soft shapes of their garments contrast with Henry VIII’s aggressive stance and the exaggerated sculptural forms of early Mannerist dress. Queen Jane’s pose compliments the controlled geometry of her gown, creating a sense of intense formality and containment. Also note the Turkish carpets underfoot. The symbolism is surely intentional, given that Suleyman the Magnificent had brought his troops to the gates of Vienna a few years earlier. Turkish carpets were rare and precious at this time and normally displayed on tables or walls, not on floors. Facing, Figure 3.2. Marcus Gheeraerts the Elder (c. 1520–90), A Fête at Bermondsey, c. 1570, oil on panel. Hertfordshire, Hatfield House. Visual Arts Library/ Art Resource, New York. The guests at this English wedding feast are in their best dress, and some prosperous townspeople are wearing forms of dress similar to those of the aristocracy. The men are wearing stylish Elizabethan melon hose. The women at upper left are wearing funnel skirts that are behind the fashion but with more fashionable narrow sleeves with puffed shoulders.

80

undergarments, as in the High Renaissance, but the rich linings of contrasting fabric were pushed up through the slits. Rich embroidery, jewels, and padding exaggerated and stiffened the garment form. Spanish styles also became important when Charles V inherited both the Spanish and Austrian thrones and became the most powerful ruler in Europe. Spain would continue to be important throughout the century as its wealth and power increased. The first half of the century was dominated by three great kings: Henry VIII of England, Francis I of France, and Charles V of Spain and Austria. The latter half of the century, however, would see the emergence of several powerful women, notably Elizabeth I of England, but also a powerful queen mother in France, Catherine de Medicis.1 This resulted in forms of dress for each period that stressed male and female power respectively. In the early period, European body display in dress continued but with pronounced padding of doublet, sleeves, and codpiece used to accentuate a powerful masculine silhouette. At the same time female dress was characterized by increasingly constricted bodice forms that emphasized a slender waist. Women’s sleeves were funnel shaped and narrow at the shoulder, giving a weaker upper body image in contrast with the wide, full-shouldered coat of male fashion. In contrast, during the later reign of Elizabeth I, women’s upper sleeves swelled with padding to create the broad, powerful silhouette of queenly authority. However, for the most part the attire of less exalted persons was less exaggerated, although the general clothing forms and silhouettes were similar (see fig. 3.2).

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Forms of dress changed very little from the fifteenth to the sixteenth centuries in Ottoman Constantinople. With the retreat of the Moors from Spain, and the Mamluk and Arab lands under Ottoman rule by 1517, Ottoman Turkish dress was now the standard Muslim dress seen by Westerners in every Near Eastern town and city. Turkish dress could also be seen in major European ports such as Venice, as noted by various commentators.2 In this period the primary visual evidence of Turkish dress is found not only in Turkish miniature paintings but also in surviving garments in the Topkapı Palace Museum in Istanbul, some of which have fairly certain dates (see fig. 3.3). Nurhan Atasoy’s publication of the collections held by the various dervish orders includes some pieces that are more representative of dress beyond the imperial court, a few of which may date from this period.3 We have many written accounts of Ottoman dress by European travelers of this period, which are often illustrated. These images provide many eyewitness images of both the ceremonial life of the court and of everyday life. They include many images of women, for whom there had been limited visual information prior to this period (see fig. 3.4). A characteristic of Ottoman dress that many travelers noted was that garments worn by men and women were quite similar, apart from headgear that continued to distinguish gender, ethnic affiliation, and rank.

The Sixteenth Century

Ottoman Dress in the Sixteenth Century

81

Facing, Figure 3.3. Shortsleeved, fur-lined kaftan, associated with Bāyazīd II (1481–1512), brocaded crimson velvet and voided velvet. Istanbul, Topkapı Palace Museum Directorate.

Among the most important of these European accounts are the prints that illustrate the travel account by Nicolas de Nicolay (see fig. 3.5a, b, c, and d, and fig. 3.6a, b, c, and d).4 Nicolay was a trained artist who spent a year in Turkey attached to a diplomatic mission, and his images are generally held to by quite accurate. However, for the purposes of this narrative, it is equally important that these widely reproduced images represent what Europeans understood to be Ottoman dress. They were copied by various artists for centuries. Other illustrated travel books were produced as well, and many were printed in multiple editions and translations.5

Sultan Suleyman I, known as “The Magnificent” in the West, was titled “The Lawgiver” (Kanuni) in his own lands because he undertook to codify Ottoman law and governance systems during his reign. Among the many categories of regulations he addressed were the sumptuary codes that had been set out earlier by Sultan Mehmet the Conqueror.6 Suleyman reaffirmed these and added to them. The intention of sumptuary law in the Ottoman system was to maintain the social order and follow the mandate of the Koran and Islamic law in limiting immodest use of luxury in dress. Luxury in this context was defined as any display that belonged to a station in society other than one’s own proper place. Sumptuary laws also set out to define the proper clothing to be worn by the various religious communities (millet) of Ottoman society, for both men and women, and for various strata of society. Required forms of dress for court officials and military personnel with their status as members of the sultan’s extended household were most particularly defined and

The Sixteenth Century

Left, Figure 3.4. Ladies of the palace. Codex Vindobonensis, c. 1586–91. Vienna, Austrian National Library. This image is one of many painted by an unknown southern German artist in the entourage of Bartolemeo di Pezzana, ambassador of the Holy Roman Emperor Rudolph II to the Sublime Porte. Just as photographers and reporters may accompany diplomats today, ambassadors of this time often traveled with an artist to create a visual record of the visit. Images of court women probably were created with lower-class models dressed in high-quality purchased clothing.

Sumptuary Law in the Ottoman Empire

83

Left, Figure 3.5a. Nicolas de Nicolay, Discovrs et histoire veritable des navigations, peregrinations et voyages, faicts en la Tvrqvie (Antwerp: A. Coninx, 1586), 65. Image retrieved from the Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, American Colony in Jerusalem Collection. Accessed March 13, 2017. https://www.loc.gov/item/05007291/. This woman in her private home wears forms of dress described in previous chapters. The garments are still cut with a high neckline but the top buttons are left open. At least two layers are visible over the chemise and the legs of her trousers are visible. The raised wooden clogs or pattens were adopted in Europe but originated in Turkey where they were worn when going to the bath or the toilet. They are still worn for this purpose in some places. Right, Figure 3.5b. Nicolas de Nicolay, A Turkie Woman of Mean Estate as Dressed in Her Chamber, in Discovrs et histoire veritable des navigations, peregrinations et voyages, faicts en la Tvrqvie (Antwerp: A. Coninx, 1586), 184. Image retrieved from the Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, American Colony in Jerusalem Collection. Accessed March 13, 2017. https://www.loc.gov/item/05007291/. This woman is of lesser status but not the lowest status, since she is wearing a patterned outer jacket and striped fabric for her undercoat. The short outer coat has wide sleeves to reveal the narrow sleeves beneath. The cylindrical hat bound with a twisted scarf was common for rural women in many parts of the country until the early twentieth century.

provided by the sultan. For example, according to the sumptuary law of 1568, yellow was reserved for the shoes of Muslims while minority men were to wear only black ones. Non-Muslim men were to wear a gray outer coat, a sash, a specific type of cloth woven of silk and cotton, and a specific turban made of “Denizli muslin.”7 Non-Muslim women were required to wear cotton, with a red and yellow striped silk and cotton fabric (alaca), specified head wraps, and blue şalvar. In later years, shoe color mandates were even more specific, with red for Greeks, black for Jews, and purple for

84

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Left, Figure 3.5c. Nicolas de Nicolay, A Woman of Caramania, in Discovrs et histoire veritable des navigations, peregrinations et voyages, faicts en la Tvrqvie (Antwerp: A. Coninx, 1586), 165. Image retrieved from the Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, American Colony in Jerusalem Collection. Accessed March 13, 2017. https://www.loc .gov/item/05007291/. The Karaman region of south central Anatolia was once the principality of Karamaniye. It had a large Greek population and the Muslim population was probably of mixed Greek and Turkish ancestry. The tall pointed hat was characteristic of this region, depicted and commented on by many travelers. Right, Figure 3.5d. Nicolas de Nicolay, A Gretian Woman of Estate of Adrianople in Thracia, in Discovrs et histoire veritable des navigations, peregrinations et voyages, faicts en la Tvrqvie (Antwerp: A. Coninx, 1586), 183. Image retrieved from the Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, American Colony in Jerusalem Collection. Accessed March 13, 2017. https://www.loc.gov/item/05007291/. Adrianople (now Edirne) was an important commercial center on a major trade route to the West in what is now northwestern Turkey. The decorative border on this woman’s veil and her ornate street coat demonstrate wealth. The basic forms are Ottoman, although there is no evidence of a hat under the veil. 

Armenians. However, the structural forms of dress for religious groups in a given region were usually quite similar, with the frequent exception of headgear, which was an important marker of affiliation and status that varied between groups. Headgear for the sultan’s household, and especially for the sultan, would often change with the accession of a new sultan. Most of the mandated official forms of dress would remain essentially unchanged until the dress reforms of the early nineteenth century, although the dress of private individuals would become more varied over time. Unlike the equivalent sumptuary edicts introduced in Europe, Ottoman dress codes seem to have been generally obeyed in this period, since they

The Sixteenth Century

85

Left, Figure 3.6a. Nicolas de Nicolay, Aga Captaine Generall of the Janissaries, in Discovrs et histoire veritable des navigations, peregrinations et voyages, faicts en la Tvrqvie (Antwerp: A. Coninx, 1586), 97. Image retrieved from the Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, American Colony in Jerusalem Collection. Accessed March 13, 2017. https://www.loc.gov/item/05007291/. The high rank of this officer is indicated by his large, round turban wound over a tall, fluted hat, both forms similar to those worn by the sultan himself in this period. His turban is decorated with plumes that were awarded to honor exceptional acts of courage and military prowess. His dress is formal with layered, long robes and hanging sleeves. Right, Figure 3.6b. Nicolas de Nicolay, Boluch Bashi Captaine of One Hundred Janissaries, in Discovrs et histoire veritable des navigations, peregrinations et voyages, faicts en la Tvrqvie (Antwerp: A. Coninx, 1586), 95. Image retrieved from the Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, American Colony in Jerusalem Collection. Accessed March 13, 2017. https://www.loc.gov/item/05007291/. This important but lesser officer is also identified mainly by his headgear, a spectacular tall hat with a curved point. This hat was caricatured by some fifteenth-century European artists who were not able to observe one firsthand (see fig. 2.31). The spectacular tall, stiff plumes in his headgear are in a form that in Europe would be called an aigrette, in Turkish a sorguç. His kaftan is similar to that of the Janissary Aga in the previous figure. It has more horizontal braid used as closure loops with needle worked round silk buttons. Braid is also applied at the side slits and the wrists of the hanging sleeves attached at the back of his armscyes. This braid trim would be widely copied in elite European dress and the European military uniforms of the next century.

reinforced a relatively stable social system in which most citizens accepted their place in society. Social control theory proposes that formal sanctions such as laws only succeed when they correspond to the informal sanctions of community expectations and the deeper sanctions of internalized values.8 There is a tacit social contract by which the governed accept or reject

86

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Left, Figure 3.6c. Nicolas de Nicolay, Azamoglan a Childe of Tribute, in Discovrs et histoire veritable des navigations, peregrinations et voyages, faicts en la Tvrqvie (Antwerp: A. Coninx, 1586), 85. Image retrieved from the Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, American Colony in Jerusalem Collection. Accessed March 13, 2017. https://www .loc.gov/item/05007291/. This young man is an apprentice in the Janissary corps. Nicolay described the dress of these azamoglan, reporting that they “are apparrelled and hose twice a yeere with course blue cloth, wearing on their heads a high yellow hat made after the fashion of a sugar loaf ” (see also fig. 2.26). The long ends of his kaftan have been tucked up into his sash. Right, Figure 3.6d. Nicolas de Nicolay, A Cooke of Turkie, in Discovrs et histoire veritable des navigations, peregrinations et voyages, faicts en la Tvrqvie (Antwerp: A. Coninx, 1586), 113. Image retrieved from the Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, American Colony in Jerusalem Collection. Accessed March 13, 2017. https://www.loc.gov /item/05007291/. Chief cooks for the palace were responsible for feeding the entire household, including the sultan. It was a powerful position, both because of their purchasing power and because any disruption in the quality and regularity of meals for the army could lead to serious disturbances. He is wearing the standard börk headdress of the Janissaries and his sleeves are rolled up for work.

the justice of the system they live under. However, if social expectations come in conflict with the formally sanctioned policies of government, laws become very difficult to enforce. A strong indication that Ottoman sumptuary edicts were widely accepted at this time is the apparent absence of additional sumptuary legislation during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Not until the beginning of the much more unstable eighteenth century, when signs of social and economic transformation emerge, do we see more frequent edicts that mostly attempt to reinforce the sixteenthcentury codes. Before that time, the lack of repetitious edicts might suggest

The Sixteenth Century

87

that existing laws were sufficient and corresponded to community expectations. The evidence visible in artworks and artifacts confirms that dress remained consistent throughout this period. Donald Quataert suggests that at this time, Ottoman citizens complied with sumptuary regulations because these edicts were not received as limitations but rather were seen as part of a system that protected the rights and privileges of the various group members during this period. This view changed as social and economic conditions altered after the seventeenth century.9 There are some reports by foreigners traveling in Turkey in this period that they adopted Turkish forms of dress while traveling or living in Ottoman lands in order to avoid problems and even dangers. However, most travelers at this early date seem to have worn their own clothing much of the time but reported that close escort by official Ottoman guards and interpreters (çavus or dragoman) was essential for safety. In 1554, Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, on the way to take up his post as ambassador to the sultan from Ferdinand of Austria, described his first sight of the Turkish escort sent to receive him at the Hungarian border: “They formed a charming spectacle to my unaccustomed eyes, with their brightly painted shields and spears, their jeweled scimitars, their many-colored plumes, their turbans of the purest white, their garments mostly of purple or bluish green, their splendid horses and trappings. Their officers welcomed me with courtesy and congratulated me on my safe arrival.”10 Only occasionally were foreigners able to move freely in the Ottoman Empire, and on such occasions they were apt to wear clothing appropriate to an Ottoman Christian.11 Fynes Moryson, traveling at the end of the century, mentioned that he acquired “Turkish” clothing in Venice for his onward journey but later described his clothing while in Turkey as being of European fashion, an object of derision on the part of people he encountered there. He also commented on the mistake he had made in having his doublet lined in “green taffety,” a sartorial crime that he fortunately was able to hide in public, since green was strictly reserved for Muslim use.12 Europeans who had the experience of an imperial reception at the Sublime Porte, as the Turkish court came to be called, were awed by Ottoman grandeur and above all impressed by the appearance and manner of the courtiers and the sultan. De Busbecq’s letters provide us with a description of such an imperial reception. He offers the following comparison between Ottoman and European dress: Now come with me and cast your eye over the immense crowd of turbaned heads, wrapped in countless folds of the whitest silk, and bright raiment of every kind and hue, and everywhere the brilliance of gold, silver, purple, silk and satin . . . A more beautiful spectacle never was presented to my gaze. Yet amid all this luxury there was a great simplicity and economy. . . . What struck me as particularly praiseworthy in that great multitude was the silence and good discipline. There were none of the cries and murmurs which usually proceed from a motley concourse and there was no crowding. Each man kept his appointed place in the quietest manner possible. . . . Their most beautiful garments of silk or satin, even if they are embroidered, as they are, cost only a ducat to make. 88

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

. . . The Turks were quite as much astonished at our manner of dress as we at theirs. They wear long robes which reach almost to their ankles, and are not only more imposing but seem to add to the stature; our dress, on the other hand, is so short and tight that it discloses the forms of the body, which would be better hidden.13

The great destabilizer of the early part of the sixteenth century was the Reformation, which began with Martin Luther’s break with the Catholic Church but quickly spread into a multiplicity of Protestant movements. These theological divisions coincided with emerging political divisions that were also reshaping European political institutions. The complexity of sixteenth-century European events may account for the general lack of attention on the part of some European historians to the role of dramatically rising Ottoman power. Yet the Ottomans were an enormous political and social influence in Europe throughout this period, both on land and in the Mediterranean, and European consciousness of the Ottoman presence was acute, coloring many aspects of European life.14 European dynastic complexities were certainly important factors in this period, as three young kings came to their thrones almost simultaneously with the onset of the Reformation: Henry VIII of England in 1509; Francis I of France in 1515; Charles V in 1506 as ruler of the Burgundian territories, in 1516 as ruler of Spain, and in 1519 as ruler of Austria.15 Sultan Suleyman came to his throne in 1520. Although these European rulers would be gone by 1556, Suleyman would continue his reign until 1566. The second half of the century was equally unsettled by dynastic claims, religious conflicts, and old enmities.16

Historical Context: Reformation and Renaissance

Ottoman power and aggression reached its zenith in the sixteenth century, greatly complicating the strategies of European powers and increasing European exposure to Ottomans themselves (map 3.1). Mehmet the Conqueror’s son, Bayezid II, determined to put an end to all Crusades and expand further into Europe by building up the Ottoman fleet.17 Bayezid’s successor, Selim II, added Syria, Palestine, the granaries and ports of Egypt, and the holy cities of Arabia to the empire. As protectors of Mecca and Medina, Ottoman sultans now took the religious title of caliph, leader of all Muslims, along with the responsibility for maintaining the holy places and protecting pilgrims. During most of the century, Ottoman sea power dominated the Mediterranean. The Ottoman navy supported the North African corsairs who harassed European shipping and ports. Only merchants under a French flag were at all safe, protected by the French treaty with the Ottomans, but this had its price. Khaireddin Barbarossa of Algiers became the admiral of the Ottoman navy. In 1543, he was invited by Francis I of France to help them fight Spanish forces and conquer Nice. He was then invited to winter his fleet in Toulon,18 which led to the embarrassing and prolonged sight of Ottoman allies ensconced in a French port.19

Historical Context: Ottoman Expansion

The Sixteenth Century

89

Map 3.1. Map of the Ottoman Empire at its greatest extent (“Ottoman Empire Acquisitions” Peter Hermes Furian, Dreamstime.com).

90

In 1570 the Ottoman navy took Cyprus from the Venetians, and although the following year they lost the great naval battle at Lepanto, the European powers did not dislodge the Ottomans from their Mediterranean positions. Lepanto gave the Europeans a great surge of confidence that it was possible to stop the Ottoman advance and seems to have moved the Turks toward diplomatic solutions. However, corsairs would continue to harass Mediterranean shipping into the seventeenth century, and Ottoman land campaigns continued. In hindsight, the limits of Ottoman power had been nearly reached, but it would be a few more generations before this would become clear to Europe.20 When Suleyman I became sultan in 1520, his duty as the new leader of the empire was to extend its frontiers. In summer 1521 he led his armies north toward Hungary. He took Belgrade as a first step toward conquering the great river system of the Danube, essential to transportation and trade for most of eastern Europe. In 1529 Suleyman unsuccessfully laid siege to Vienna, Charles V’s Austrian capital. He returned in 1532 and failed to take the city again. It took approximately ninety to one hundred days for the

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure 3.7. Reception of Foreign Ambassadors by Sultan Mehmet III, c. 1586. Codex Vindobonensis 8615. Illustrations for a history by Johannes Lewenklau. Vienna, Austrian National Library.

Ottoman army to reach Vienna, leaving a very limited window of opportunity during which to accomplish military objectives before the end of the season. However, to the European powers facing these invasions, this limitation was not at all apparent.

With increased diplomatic activity, opportunities to see Turks and Ottoman dress were becoming more common outside the Mediterranean ports. European ambassadors visited the Ottoman court, and those nations with treaties, notably France and Venice, maintained permanent embassies in Constantinople (see fig. 3.7). Ottoman envoys and their retinues made three visits to the French court: from Suleyman to Francis I in 1533, from Selim II to Charles IX in 1571, and from Murad III to Henri III in 1581.21 Previously Bayezid II sent envoys to Florence, Milan, and Savoy.22 Also in 1580 the first Ottoman merchants—an Armenian, a Greek, and a Muslim citizen—arrived in London to make purchases for the Ottoman Sultan Murad III.23

The Sixteenth Century

Historical Context: Diplomacy

91

Ottoman participation in European affairs included financial subsidies to their French allies. In 1533, even before the treaty, Sultan Suleyman provided 100,000 gold pieces to Francis I to support development of a coalition against Charles V.24 It has been suggested that the formal recognition of Protestantism by the Hapsburgs may have been a result of intervention by the Ottoman sultan, who saw the Protestants as a potential ally against the Holy Roman Empire. Suleyman wrote at least one letter encouraging Protestant leaders in Germany to maintain their faith and support the French against Charles V.25 Protestants, both groups and individuals, also found haven in the Ottoman Empire, settling in Istanbul and elsewhere, just as Spanish Jews had found a new home in the Ottoman Empire in 1492.26 Italians had even more personal ties because of their long mercantile history with the Turks. Andrea Gritti, elected Doge of Venice in 1523, had served for many years in Constantinople and had Italian- and Turkishborn sons who rose to positions of distinction in both worlds.27 Although feared and abhorred, by the end of the sixteenth century the Turks were in some ways accepted as the heirs of Rome and Byzantium. Ottomans were considered adversaries but they never lacked for European allies. From the beginning they were astute players of the European diplomatic game.28

Trade

Europeans continued their attempts to tap the great Ottoman commercial potential as both the gateway to Asian luxuries and a market for European goods. Venice was in decline throughout the century as its merchants lost bases in the eastern Mediterranean and found themselves entangled in costly wars that estranged them from Ottoman favor. In 1536 the French were the first power after the Italians to achieve a military and commercial agreement with the Ottomans, finalized in 1569.29 Such agreements were essential as the Ottoman navy effectively controlled most of the Mediterranean during this century, considering any foreign ships not protected by treaties fair game. The French-Ottoman alliance would continue, with periodic stresses and strains, for three hundred years. The treaty gave reciprocal trading privileges to the French and any who traveled under their flag, effectively ending the Venetian monopoly on Eastern trade. Meanwhile the English also sought to enter the Levant trade. English conflicts with the French generally precluded trading under the French flag as some nations did. The English also tried to get around Ottoman control of Eastern trade by going overland through Russia. For this purpose a Russian company was founded, and its representative, Anthony Jenkinson, was in Russia and Central Asia in 1557 and in Persia in 1561 and 1562.30 Anthony and Robert Sherley (see fig. 4.9a) went to Persia in 1598 to negotiate with the Shah for a trade agreement in an effort that was unsuccessful.31 Meanwhile, an Ottoman navy confronted Portuguese merchants attempting to establish trading posts at Ormuz and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea. Although the Ottomans failed to prevent the establishment of a Portuguese

92

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

colony at Ormuz, the Ottoman presence in the Persian Gulf strengthened the overland trade from India to Ottoman Aleppo, where Europeans could trade under Ottoman control. English efforts to achieve an Ottoman treaty would be renewed in the reign of Elizabeth I. A lengthy and intensely secret series of negotiations finally resulted in a treaty concluded in 1579–80 by William Harbourne, much to the dismay of the French. The culmination of several years of negotiation found William Harbourne and his party joining a Turkish caravan for the journey through the Balkans, dressed in Turkish attire to keep their arrival a secret. The public reason for the trip was trade but the secret reason was to formally establish diplomatic relations with the Porte.32 The English Levant Company was established in 1579 to organize the enterprise. Although in time the creation of new sea routes around Africa would damage the overland trade routes across Asia to eastern Mediterranean ports, they continued to flourish until the development of Britain’s East India Company in the seventeenth century. Until then, goods from India continued to arrive via Ottoman ports. The variety of goods exchanged was similar to those in the previous century including British wool to clothe the Ottoman army, “Silks, chamlets, Rubarbe, Malmsies, Muskadels and other wines, sweete oyles, cotten wolle, Turkei carpets, Calles, Pepper, Cinamom, and some other spices, &c.”33 At the end of the century, following the English treaty, a document containing notes by Lord Burghley listed Aleppo as a source for raw silk and indigo and Cairo as a source for flax, hemp, and raw silk. Also obtained from Ottoman ports were “Cotton wolls Cotton lynnen cloth, Cotton yarn and Bombazyns.”34 Quilts were listed in another Turkey Company inventory. In 1585 the Venetian ambassador Morosini reported that “from Constantinople go wool, leather, furs, and cambric; from Greece, cotton and spun thread; from Syria silk, ginger, spices, cotton, dyes, spun thread, pistachios, muslin, carpets; from Alexandria, spices .  .  . , textiles, carpets, sugar and other things.”35 Camlet continued to be of particular interest in the trade with Turkey. Silk was still a primarily Eastern product, especially early in the century, though the Italian silk industry had been expanding rapidly for some time. Although sericulture would be taken up in Europe, the European silk textile industry would always depend on imported silk fiber. Persian silk textiles and fibers were considered to be of exceptional quality, but Ottoman warfare with Persia frequently interrupted this trade.

The sixteenth century saw a proliferation of travel books published that chronicled the adventures of merchants, diplomats, explorers, and scholars. In France between 1480 and 1609 over eighty such works were published on Turkey, while only forty were published on the New World.36 In contrast to the fantasies disseminated by earlier travelers, works published

The Sixteenth Century

Exchanges of Cultural Ideas: Literature, Humanities, and the Arts

93

in this period were somewhat more likely to present accurate observations. Nonetheless, the prejudices of the day were readily apparent in many writings. The general academic consensus in Europe at this time was that the Turks were descended from the barbarian Scythians who had previously harassed Rome, and so their language and literature were dismissed as of little or no academic interest.37 This view of Turks as barbarian interlopers would continue to color European attitudes through the end of the Ottoman Empire. Turks and the Turkish language were left to the merchants and diplomats, who mainly used Ottoman interpreters. Even the study of Arabic was confined to classical literary Arabic, and few Europeans achieved conversational fluency in colloquial Arabic until much later. The emphasis in European scholarship would remain on the Arabs. Thus, understanding of Ottomans or their culture was either achieved through interpreters or the books of European travelers. Richard Hakluyt, an English scholar inspired by the great voyages of discovery made in his times, set out to compile and publish all the accounts he could find of voyages to distant lands made by Englishmen. His Principal Navigations, Voyages, and Discoveries of the English Nation was first published in 1589 following the English defeat of the Spanish Armada and expanded to three volumes in 1598–1600.38 His purpose was to inspire English exploration and trade. His work included, among many wonderful accounts, the record of the diplomatic intrigues and labors of William Harbourne, who negotiated the English treaty for Elizabeth I with the Ottoman Porte. In March 1583, Harbourne arrived in Constantinople to take up his duties as ambassador and was presented with due ceremony at the court. The gifts he presented to the sultan from Queen Elizabeth included, in addition to quantities of silver and gilt, a spectacular gem-set silver clock and much more, including “twelve fine broad clothes, two pieces of fine holland.”39 A vast amount of hostile material was also published about the Turks at this time. There were gruesome illustrated accounts of Turkish atrocities, such as the 1544 illustrated diatribe of Bartholomew Georgevich of Croatia. Martin Luther in his sermons and writings presented the “political and spiritual enemies of Christ” as “Gog the Turk and Magog the Pope,” though he judged the Pope to be the “true AntiChrist” and the Ottoman sultan only as the “Battle-Axe of God.”40 These condemnations were born of genuine fear that the messenger of Armageddon was at hand, carrying a scimitar and wearing a turban.41 Speculative histories of the Turks were written, in which various imaginative genealogies were developed out of the typical classical education of the day. There was the popular idea, already mentioned, that the Turks were descendants of the Scythian invaders of ancient Greece and Rome. Others theorized that the Turks were descendants of the Trojans, along with the Italians and French, or that the Turkish conquest of Greece and the Balkans was retribution for the ancient sins of Agamemnon.42 Classicism was an

94

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure 3.8. Albrecht Dürer, The Martyrdom of Saint John from The Apocalypse (German, Nuremberg 1471–1528), 1498. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of Junius Spencer Morgan, 1919. Paintings with religious themes continued to use Muslims as villains and Muslim dress to create “authentic” Middle Eastern settings.

essential element of thought in Europe and at this time neither history nor contemporaneous alien civilizations were well understood. The intermingling of Muslim and classical elements in art, literature, and fashion were to be expected, in view of the geographic overlap of the two cultures. As has so often been the case throughout history, fashion, taste, and intellectual fascination were often directed toward perceived centers of power, even of danger. There was great demand for eyewitness accounts, if possible carefully illustrated with correctly dressed Ottomans, to give verisimilitude to the narrative. Even while viewing with horror and alarm the advance of the Ottoman hordes, the fashion world was drawn to the exotic and excited by the frisson of danger. All of this offered marvelous potential for theater, and theater has always been a venue for interpretations of exotic dress. Masques and inter-

The Sixteenth Century

95

mezzos featuring Turkish characters or dancers were common throughout this period.43 The English playwrights Christopher Marlowe, Thomas Kyd, and William Shakespeare all wrote plays with Turkish themes or Turkish references. The French playwright Gabriel Bounin portrayed Sultan Suleyman in his 1561 play La Soltane.44 In the visual arts, there are quantities of images depicting Turks, many recording historical encounters. Historical themes in paintings, done for aristocratic collections by artists such as Titian, used accurate representations of Turks in works that celebrated victories or diplomatic events. Religious paintings continued to use Turkish dress to indicate villains in biblical scenes or depictions of the martyrdom of saints (see fig. 3.8). The explosion in publishing also generated important print collections depicting Turkish and other Muslim dress. Some of these images were drawn from life by visitors to Ottoman lands. Notable among these were the costume plates in Nicolas de Nicolay’s travel account discussed above. Melchior Lorck depicted detailed views of Turkish people and their dress.45 A costume book in the Bodleian Library from 1588 is an example of a genre from Constantinople sold to Europeans as a souvenir of their visit.46 A manuscript from 1586 offers an extraordinary collection of costume images in color painted by an unknown artist in the retinue of Bartolemeo di Pezzana, ambassador of the Holy Roman Emperor Rudolph II (see fig. 3.4). A fine costume book is also to be seen in the Museo Correr in Venice. Since the French were the only European power that had treaty relations with France for most of the century, there are also numerous firsthand descriptions, written and visual, of costumes from French sources.47 Many costume books published in Europe used these firsthand sources (and others) to further disseminate images of Muslim costume, including those illustrated by Jost Amman (1586), Jean Jacques Boissard (1581), and Cesare Vecellio (1590).48 Most of these images compare fairly well with images and artifacts from eyewitness sources. But accurate or not, these works depict the perception of Ottoman style as it was then understood in Europe and show us the features of Ottoman dress that might be copied in Western dress. However, to varying degrees, European illustrators depicted their Ottoman figures through the lens of European body ideals, style, clothing construction methods, and aesthetics. Ottoman influences on European music would also be substantial.49 In the sixteenth century one of the more significant introductions was the military band. The Ottoman army marched to battle to the accompaniment of woodwinds, trumpets, cymbals, and enormous kettledrums, singing all the way (see fig. 2.7). The Austrian army, impressed by this daunting spectacle, decided to create a military band to support the morale of its own troops, and the idea would eventually spread across Europe. Ottoman dominance of the Muslim world in this period caused the term “Turk” to become synonymous with “Muslim” in popular European usage, as formerly “Arab” or “Saracen” had been used. The term “Saracen” dropped away and “Arab” came to refer to politically irrelevant “pillaging

96

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Bedouins.”50 Persians remained the “other” Muslims, known to be at odds with the Turks, but geographically less accessible to the West. However, the perception of a shared enemy led to the casting of Persians in a more sympathetic light and a growing tendency to attribute Orientalist ideas to Persian sources, even in a period when Persia remained for the most part a mystery to Europe.

The effect of layering and the use of coats continued to be of importance in this period. Coats were worn at various times by both men and women (see figs. 3.9, 3.10, and 3.11). In Venice at the turn of the century the term turcha was still used to describe any long gown that opened down the front like a Turkish coat.51 A short, wide coat was also adopted that created an impressive upper body silhouette without obscuring the European taste for beautifully hosed and accessorized legs, fitted doublets, and ostentatious codpieces. The sleeve of the coat was short, permitting display of a decorated undersleeve in the Turkish manner. Loose, short coats of this type first appeared in the 1490s in Italy, where the cut of sleeve and collar was virtually equivalent to Turkish examples. In the 1530s the form, like all Mannerist dress, became more structured and elaborate. Henry VIII is known to have delighted in Turkish dress. Henry’s chronicler, Edward Hall, described an occasion when Henry appeared for a masque during the Christmas revels at Richmond dressed as a Turkish sultan: “His grace, with the Erle of Essex, came in appareled after Turkey fashion in long robes of Bawdkin, powdered in gold, hattes on their heddes of Crimosyn Velvet, with greate rolles of Gold, girded with two swordes, called Cimiteries, hanging by greate bawderikes of gold.”52 The king and the earl were followed by a retinue of courtiers dressed in the exotic fashion of Russians, Persians, and Moors. Hall described also Turkish carpets and textiles as part of the furnishings at the famed Field of Cloth of Gold, where Henry met his contemporary and rival, Francis I of France, in an ostentatious celebration of concord. In 1542, toward the end of his reign, King Henry posed for a portrait that is a striking comparison (apart from headgear) to that of his contemporary, Suleyman the Magnificent, and the dress of sultans before and after him (see figs. 3.12 and 3.13; also see figs. 3.6 and 2.11). The layered coats with their progressive sleeve lengths and contrasting decoration of fabrics are of particular interest as are the rows of horizontal bands forming the distinctive closures. Closures of this type can be seen in many images of Ottoman dress and on kaftans from the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in the Topkapı collections (see fig. 3.3). The Turkish example is an applied flat silk braid joining the coat fronts with a button and loop. Henry’s more ostentatious Mannerist version is created in bejeweled gold, but braid equivalents were also being used in Europe. This type of closure appeared in European dress in the first half of the sixteenth century and became a staple of European fashion. A delightful Rubens portrait dating from 1600 of the

The Sixteenth Century

Borrowings in Dress

97

Top left, Figure 3.9. Lorenzo Lotto, Portrait of Febo da Brescia, 1543–44. Milan, Pinacoteca di Brera. This turcha coat has short, straight sleeves slit at the top to reveal both the expensive fur lining and the undersleeve, which is a fashionably somber black to match the coat. Bottom left, Figure 3.11. Hans Holbein the Younger (1497–1543), The Ambassadors, 1533, oil on oak, 207 × 209.5 cm. Bought 1890 (NG1314). London, National Gallery. (Photo Credit: © National Gallery, London/Art Resource, New York.) Jean de Dintville (left) was ambassador to England at this time and Bishop Georges de Selve had served as ambassador to Venice and the Holy See. The table is covered with a Turkish carpet, a common high-status decoration of the time. Both men wear fur-lined coats. The bishop wears a modest, somewhat old-fashioned coat suitable to his age and occupation while the younger ambassador wears a fashionable short, wide coat with puffed sleeves that reveal the undersleeve in the Turkish manner.

Facing right, Figure 3.10. Attributed to Master John, Katherine Parr, c. 1545 (artwork © National Portrait Gallery, London). In this period, layering has become an important component of fashionable dress. The skirt is constructed to give the illusion of a frontopening garment that reveals the rich layers beneath. The sleeves are also cut to reveal layers, the trailing fur-lined outer sleeve frames an undersleeve, and the undersleeve is slashed to reveal still another layer. Above left, Figure 3.12. King Henry VIII, unknown artist, 1542 (artwork © National Portrait Gallery, London). Above right, Figure 3.13. Attributed to Nakkaş Osman, January 2, 1569, Süleyman I receiving John Sigismund Zapolya in 1566, miniature painting. Istanbul, Topkapı Palace Museum Directorate. H. 1339, fol. 16v. This posthumous portrait of the sultan is considered one of the most authentic, done by an artist who had seen him several times in his later years. His clothes are partly based on earlier verbal and visual descriptions of the middle-aged sultan.

Figure 3.14. Portrait of Elizabeth I, unknown artist, c. 1575. London, National Portrait Gallery. This portrait was done during the secret negotiations with the Ottoman court that resulted in a treaty establishing commercial and diplomatic relations in 1581, an English goal since the reign of Henry VII. Cut in a broad, masculine style, the bodice is closed with horizontal bands of decorative braid that were typical of Ottoman official dress. Gifts of clothing were sent via the envoy from the sultan to the queen on several occasions.

three-year-old princess Eleonora Gonzaga, future empress of Austria, is one of many from this period that shows an Ottoman-style, short-sleeved coat with rows of gold braid and buttons. The inventories of the Office of the Revels during the reign of Elizabeth I included numerous references to costumes for Turks and Moors.53 When trade negotiations with the Ottoman Porte were concluded in 1581, the exchange of royal gifts included an entire ensemble of Turkish clothing sent by Murad  III to Elizabeth I. Unfortunately, the garments have not survived.54 However, there is a portrait of the queen done during these secret negotiations, wearing a bodice closed with the horizontal bands of decorative braid that were typical of Ottoman official dress (see fig. 3.14).

100

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure 3.15. Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger, probably Mary (née Throckmorton), Lady Scudamore, 1615, oil on panel (artwork © National Portrait Gallery, London). This long coat is abundantly embellished with rows of horizontal braid running up the front opening and on either side of the short split sleeve.

By the middle of the century, European women and men began to wear long coats, either with hanging sleeves or short sleeves that showed the bodice sleeve beneath (see fig. 3.15). By the early sixteenth century the turbans, hennins, and bourellets had all but disappeared, with the exception of the padded roundlet that continued to be seen in Italy until about 1530. Throughout much of the century, men’s and women’s headgear in France and England seemed to follow European models, with men wearing flat, soft hats that apparently derived from a French or northern source.55 Taller hats reminiscent of the tall hats men wore in the mid-fifteenth century in Burgundy and France reappear at the end of the sixteenth century—hats that again resemble the tall Otto-

The Sixteenth Century

101

Left, Figure 3.16a. Melchior Lorck, Sultan Süleyman and the Süleymaniye Mosque, Constantinople, 1574 (or earlier) altered in 1688 to represent Ibrahim I, 1559–1688. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Elisha Whittelsey Collection, Elisha Whittelsey Fund, 1959. This portrait was done near the end of Sultan Suleyman’s life when Lorck was in Constantinople. Compare the coat with its hanging sleeves and the hat within the turban with those worn by Lord Burghley. Right, Figure 3.16b. William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley, 1520–98, unknown artist, 1590s (artwork © National Portrait Gallery, London). The long hanging sleeve continues to be a hallmark of the stately coat, now frequently embellished with horizontal bands of gold braid.

102

man turban or kavuk (see fig. 3.16a and b). These hats seemed to have become popular following the European victory at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571 and the establishment of the Turkey Company following the treaty between England and the Ottoman Empire in 1581. Many aspects of Ottoman military dress would affect European fashionable dress and military dress as well as practices. The first effects on military dress were, not surprisingly, seen in Austria, where confrontations with Ottoman forces were a regular occurrence. Melchior Lorck, who witnessed the siege of Vienna and also visited Constantinople in the retinue of Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, produced a wonderful collection of images depicting Turkish dress and events (see fig. 3.17a and b). Particularly among the border regiments along the Balkan front, dress became very similar.56 From the beginning of the century, elaborate displays of plumes became a prominent feature of German and Swiss mercenary knights or Landesknecht (see fig. 3.18a and b).57 Among the Turks, the wearing of plumes and crests was a custom of very ancient origin worn as a mark of affiliation, rank, and prowess in battle, dating back to pre-Islamic Central Asian beginnings.58 Along the Ottoman border with the Austrians, there was a contingent of audacious young Turkish irregulars, known for their fearlessness and their wild dress. Nicolay encountered such a young man, whom he says was called a “delly” and reported that “I asked him why hee did apparrell himselfe so strangely, and with such great feathers, his aunswere was, that it was to shew and appeare unto his enemies, more furious

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

& fearefull. And as for the feathers, the custome amongst them was, that to none other it was permitted to weare them; but unto suche as had made some memorable proofe of their person, for that amongst them the feathers were estemed to be the true ornament of a valiant man of warre, which was al that I could learne of this prety Delly.”59 Nicolay’s term delly seems to correspond to modern Turkish deli, which translates as “crazy.” A phrase in Turkish, deli kanli, translates as “crazy blood” and is generally used as a term for any hot-headed young man. The wild plumes of the Landesknecht make an interesting comparison with the display worn by these bravos, who were the frontier shock troops of the Ottoman army. The extravagant plumes worn by janissary officers shown in figure 3.6 and figure 4.14 are more formal examples of the dramatic, flamboyant effect of plumage in men’s military dress. Less outrageous plumes became a common addition to male headgear everywhere in Europe, particularly from the 1490s onward. In addition to being a spectacular feature of Ottoman dress, ostrich plumes and other exotic feathers were a commodity to be obtained only from south of the Mediterranean, making them obviously an exotic innovation in fashion. In 1583 a Venetian caravan from Basra to Aleppo was reported to include, along with spices, ostrich feathers.60

The Sixteenth Century

Left, Figure 3.17a. Melchior Lorck, Wohlgerissene und geschnittene Figuren, in Military Dress of the Border (c. 1619–26) New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Harris Brisbane Dick Fund, 1932. An Ottoman cavalryman. Right, Figure 3.17b. Melchior Lorck, a Spahi, a cavalry soldier on horseback; in profile to left; a tuft of feathers on his pointed helmet and attached to his shield; on the shield a winged claw and flowers (from a series of 127 woodcuts, 1576 Woodcut © Trustees of the British Museum).

103

Left, Figure 3.18a. Nicolas de Nicolay, Delly (from Nauigations, Perigrinations and Voyages Made into Turkie), 1585. One of a contingent of young Turkish irregulars known for their fearlessness and their wild intimidating dress. Right, Figure 3.18b. Lucas Cranach, Landesknecht, 1505. Vienna, Albertina. The Landesknecht was a mercenary soldier and likely to see action against the Turks, probably encountering such characters as the delly. The fashion for extravagant plumage among German soldiers may have begun with such encounters.

Although for the most part European women’s head coverings had ceased to be so prominent, there is one interesting form that appears in the last third of the century (see fig. 3.19a and b). The shape of this headdress is striking: a tall cylinder set on top of the head but closed at the top to make a flat edge parallel with the face that is slightly wider than the round base. At the back, there is a hanging cloth appendage. This headgear is strikingly similar to the characteristic headdress of the Janissaries, the elite Ottoman military corps.61 Their distinctive headgear, known as the börk, has the same shape but was traditionally made of felt (see figs. 1.9, 2.20, and 3.6). According to tradition, the börk was alleged to have derived from a detachable felt coat sleeve that was put on as a hat with the wrist end of the “sleeve” hanging down the back. The dangling appendage may vary in length, color, and decoration, depending on the rank of the wearer. An example is in the Austrian National Museum of History in Vienna, along with many other trophies of sixteenth-century battles with the Turks. Italian, German, and Swiss soldiers encountered the Janissaries on the battlefields of eastern

104

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Left, Figure 3.19a. Christoph Weiditz, Trachtenbuch, 1530/1540. Germanisches Nationalmuseum. Frauentracht in Irland—“Allso gand die Frawen In Irlanden” [in pink], Frauentracht in der Bretagne—“Allso gand die Frawen Klaitt gemainclich Im Land Bretania.” Sixteenth-century costume images of a Breton woman and an Irish woman in headgear that very much resemble the Janissary börk. Right, Figure 3.19b. Christoph Krieger, Virdunense, after Cesare Vecellio, 1598. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum. A “Woman of Verdun” in headgear that resembles the Janissary börk.

Europe and in the naval confrontations that culminated in the Battle of Lepanto in 1571. Merchants also saw them in the streets of Constantinople, Aleppo, and Alexandria. Certainly, the timing and nationality of the examples seen in sixteenth-century costume books suggest that it is quite possible that such headdresses came home with returning soldiers as trophies and inspired a new style.

1. Colin Jones, Cambridge History of France, Cambridge History Series (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 136. 2. Julian Raby, Venice, Durer, and the Oriental Mode (London: Islamic Art Publications, 1982), 21–22; Maxime Rodinson, Europe and the Mystique of Islam, trans. Roger Vernius (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1991), 33–35. Rodinson mentions the growing frequency with which Turkish emissaries and their retinues visited European capitals from the 1490s onward, particularly in Italy. 3. Nurhan Atasoy, Dervis Ceyizi: Turkiye’de Tarikat Giyim-Kusam Tarihi (Istanbul: T. C. Kultur Bakanligi, 2000).

The Sixteenth Century

Notes

105

4. Nicolas de Nicolay, Nauigations, Peregrinations and Voyages, Made into Turkie by Nicholas Nicolay . . . Containing Sundry Singularities Which the Author Hath There Seene and Observed (London: Thomas Dawson, 1585). 5. Brandon H. Beck, From the Rising of the Sun: English Images of the Ottoman Empire, vol. 20, American University Series IX (New York: Peter Lang, 1987); Raby, Venice, Durer, and the Oriental Mode; Rodinson, Europe and the Mystique of Islam. Among the many eyewitness accounts that describe or depict dress are works by Giovanantonio Menavino of Genoa (in 1512–20) and Luigi Bassano in Costumi et I Modi Particolari della Vita De’ Turchi: Monaco di Baviera (1537–41), both of whom were captured and subsequently served as pages in the Ottoman court before returning home to write or illustrate accounts of their travels. Also there are the well-known illustrated works of Pieter Coecke van Aelst (1533), Nicolas de Nicolay (1551–52), Guillaume Postel (1535), Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq (1554–62), Hans Dernschwam (1553), Melchior Lorck (1554–59), and Joachim Sinzendorf (1577–81), all of whom visited the Ottoman court with diplomatic missions. Other travelers to describe Ottoman dress include a Spanish author, Crisobel de Villalon (1552), Phillipe du Fresne-Canaye (1573), and the English chronicler Fynes Moryson (1596–97). Dates refer to the period in which these travelers visited the Ottoman Empire. These works were widely translated and published. 6. Donald Quataert, “Clothing Laws, State and Society in the Ottoman Empire, 1720–1829,” International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 29 (1997): 405–6. 7. Fatma Müge Göçek, Rise of the Bourgeoisie, Demise of Empire: Ottoman Westernization and Social Change (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 34, 156. 8. Stanley Cohen and Andrew Scull, eds., Social Control and the State (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1983), 6. 9. Quataert, “Clothing Laws, State and Society in the Ottoman Empire, 1720–1829,” 406. 10. Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, The Turkish Letters of Ogier Ghiselin De Busbecq, Imperial Ambassador at Constantinople, 1554–1562, Elzevir edition, 1633 ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 6. 11. Samuel Purchas, “Chapter IX, Parts of a Letter to Master William Biddulph from Aleppo,” in Purchas: His Pilgrimes (London: William Stansby for Henrie Fetherstone, 1625), 290; de Busbecq, The Turkish Letters of Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, 150. 12. Fynes Moryson, An Itinerary Vvritten by Fynes Moryson Gent. First in the Latine Tongue, and Then Translated by Him into English: Containing His Ten Yeeres Travell Throvgh the Tvvelve Domjnions of Germany, Bohmerland, Sweitzerland, Netherland, Denmarke, Poland, Italy, Turky, France, England, Scotland, and Ireland, vol. III (London: J. Beale, 1617), iv, 175. 13. De Busbecq, The Turkish Letters of Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, 61. 14. Donald Vitkus, “Early Modern Orientalism: Representations of Islam in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Europe,” in Western Views of Islam in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, ed. David R. Blanks and Michael Frassetto (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999), 207–30. 15. John Merriman, A History of Modern Europe (New York: W. W. Norton, 1996), 87–137, 187–94. 16. Ibid., 143–59. 17. Halil Inalcik, The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age 1300–1600 (London: Phoenix, 2000), 36. 18. Daniel Goffman, The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 110. 19. John Patrick Douglas Balfour Kinross, The Ottoman Centuries (New York: William Morrow, 1977), 227–28.

106

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

20. Inalcik, The Ottoman Empire, 41–43; Bernard Lewis, The Muslim Discovery of Europe (New York: W. W. Norton, 1982), 43–44. 21. Fatma Müge Göçek, East Encounters West: France and the Ottoman Empire in the Eighteenth Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 9. 22. Lewis, The Muslim Discovery of Europe, 110. 23. Halil Inalcik and Donald Quataert, An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1914 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 371. 24. Kinross, The Ottoman Centuries, 174. 25. Inalcik, The Ottoman Empire, p. 37; Vitkus, “Early Modern Orientalism,” 212. 26. Goffman, The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe, 111. 27. Ibid., 139. 28. Ibid., 18–20; Rodinson, Europe and the Mystique of Islam, 35–36. 29. Inalcik and Quataert, An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 194. 30. S. A. Skilliter, William Harborne and the Trade with Turkey 1578–1582 (London: Oxford University Press, 1977), 6–9. 31. Anthony Sherley, “A Briefe Compendium of the Historie of Sir Anthony Sherleys Travels into Persia,” in Hakluytus Postumus, or Purchas His Pilgrimes, ed. Samuel Purchas (Glasgow: James MacLehose and Sons, 1905), 375–449. Reprint Hakluyt Society. 32. Skilliter, William Harborne and the Trade with Turkey, 39. 33. Richard Hakluyt, The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques and Discoveries of the English Nation (London: G. Bishop, R. Newberie, and R. Barker, 1599–1600), 63. 34. Skilliter, William Harborne and the Trade with Turkey, 178–79. 35. James C. Davis, Pursuit of Power: Venetian Ambassadors’ Reports on Turkey, France and Spain in the Age of Phillip II, 1560–1600 (New York: Harper and Row, 1970), 130–31. 36. Paul Coles, The Ottoman Impact on Europe (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1968), 152. 37. Irwin, op. cit., pp. 85–86, 110–111. [[Au: Please include full citation as Irwin does not appear in a preceding reference.]] 38. Richard Hakluyt, The Principal Navigations, 63. 39. Albert Lindsay Rowland, England and Turkey: The Rise of the Diplomatic and Commercial Relations (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1924), 31. 40. Martin Luther, The Letters of Martin Luther (London: Macmillan, 1908), 199; M. A., R. C., eds., The Prophecyes of the Incomparable Dr. Martin Luther [Microform]: Concerning the Downfall of the Pope of Rome, and the Subversion of the German Empire, to Be Over-Run by the Armies of the Turks, Together with the Many Reasons That He Giveth for It (London: Andrew Kembe and Edward Thomas, 1664). 41. Vitkus, “Early Modern Orientalism,” 21–25. 42. Rodinson, Europe and the Mystique of Islam, 36; Nancy Bisaba, “‘New Barbarian’ or Worthy Adversary? Humanist Constructs of the Ottoman Turks in Fifteenth-Century Italy,” in Western Views of Islam in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Perception of the Other, ed. David R. Blanks and Michael Frassetto, 194–95 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999), 185–206. 43. Raby, Venice, Durer, and the Oriental Mode, 18. 44. Clarence Dana Rouillard, The Turk in French History, Thought and Literature, Études de Littérature Étrangère et Comparée (Paris: Boivin et Cie, 1941), 426. 45. Melchior Lorck, “Konstantinopel Unter Sultan Suleiman Dem Grossen Aufgenomunen Im Jahre 1559,” in British Library 45, London, 1570–83. 46. A costume book (1588) from the Bodleian Library at University of Oxford.

The Sixteenth Century

107

47. Rouillard, The Turk in French History, Thought and Literature, 171–289. Rouillard provides an appendix of three hundred pamphlets published in France between 1480 and 1660. 48. Jean Jacques Boissard, Habitus Varium Orbis Gentium (Costume of the Various Peoples of the World) (France, 1581); Cesare Vecellio, Habiti Antichi et Moderni de Tutto Il Mundo. Original edition De gli Habiti antichi et moderni de Diverse Pari del Mondo, Damian Zenaro, Venice, 1590 ed. (Venice: Giovanni Bernardo Sessa, 1598); Hans Weigel, Trachtenbuch, Illustrated by Jost Amman (Nuremberg: Hans Weigel, 1577). 49. Edmund A. Bowles, “The Impact of Turkish Military Bands on European Court Festivals in the 17th and 18th Centuries,” in Early Music 34, no. 4 (2006): 533–79. 50. Rodinson, Europe and the Mystique of Islam, 36. 51. Stella Mary Newton, The Dress of the Venetians, 1495–1525, vol. 7, Pasold Studies in Textiles (Brookfield, VT: Gower, 1988), 134. 52. Edward Hall, Henry VIII, the Lives of the Kings, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T. C. and E. C. Jack, 1904). Reprint, 1550 folio edition, 15–16. 53. Albert Feuillerat, ed., Documents Relating to the Office of the Revels in the Time of Queen Elizabeth (London: David Nutt, 1908). 54. Janet Arnold, Queen Elizabeth’s Wardrobe Unlocked (Leeds: W. S. Maney & Son, 1988), 98, 108; Skilliter, William Harborne and the Trade with Turkey 1578– 1582, 77–78. 55. Newton, The Dress of the Venetians, 81, 106. 56. Coles, The Ottoman Impact on Europe, 49, 104. 57. Charlotte Jirousek, “More Than Oriental Splendor: European and Ottoman Headgear, 1380–1580,” Dress 22 (1995): 22–33. 58. Nazan Tapan, “Sorguçlar [Crests],” Sanat 3, no. 6 (1977): 99–107. 59. Nicolay, Nauigations, Peregrinations and Voyages, book 4, 127. 60. Inalcik and Quataert, An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 340. 61. Nicolay, Nauigations, Peregrinations and Voyages, book 3, chap. 4; Alexander Pallis, In the Days of the Janissaries: Old Turkish Life as Depicted in the Travel Book of Evliya Chelebi (London: Hutchinson, 1951), 31–38.

108

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

4

The Seventeenth Century Shifting Power, Emerging Modernities

At the beginning of the seventeenth century, Ottoman Turkey maintained its image as a force to be feared. This confidence would be shaken by the century’s end. In Europe, there were changes in economy, technology, and organization that led to increasing strength in commerce, warfare, and diplomacy and to a growing independence of thought and conscience.

European dress continued to reflect the changes of a volatile society marked by religious, political, and economic conflict. The worldwide expansion of European discovery, trade, and colonization transformed the world economy. Islamic dress features continued to appear in Western fashion, reflecting the ongoing Ottoman presence in European affairs. French, British, and Dutch commercial interests were the primary competitors for the Levant trade in this period, eclipsing the Italian commercial presence that had already suffered decline in the sixteenth century. The India trade also began to influence European tastes. During the era of Louis XIV, French style came to dominate European fashion as it would through most of the twentieth century. This emergence of a true fashion system in France corresponded to a period when economic changes shifted wealth from the landed aristocracy to an emerging bourgeoisie. In the same period, Ottoman dress remained much the same and showed only minor variations in detail, reflecting the conviction that Ottoman destiny was ordained and its civilization superior to all others. Constantinople was the defining center of Muslim socioeconomic life for most of the Near East west of Persia and for all the lands surrounding the eastern and southern Mediterranean and the Black Sea. European innovations were of little interest. Although more European merchandise was in Ottoman markets, imports from India, Persia, and other Asian lands were still more important to them.1

Characteristics of Dress West and East

109

Figure 4.1. Dirck van Delen, Conversation outside a Castle, 1636. Copenhagen, National Museum of Denmark (artwork © SMK Photo). The wide, flat collar has replaced the ruff for fashionable people, with lace for those who could afford it. The men’s doublets are less fitted and generally do not button all the way to the bottom. Women’s gowns retain a highwaisted, easy fit. The woman at center shows the fashion for sometimes hooking up the overskirt of a dress to reveal the layer beneath.

European Dress in the Seventeenth Century

110

The European middle classes continued to grow with the Reformation, and society continued to diversify, which meant more people moved away from traditional dress and toward greater participation in fashion. Fashions in the first half of the Baroque era were soft and relaxed, in contrast with the highly structured and ornamented dress of the late Mannerist period (see fig. 4.1). Toward the middle of the century, breeches became fuller and much embellished with ribbons. The doublet began to shrink and open up to reveal the shirt, which was previously considered underwear. The full petticoat breeches favored by a young Louis XIV in 1658 quickly spread to England, where the end of Puritan rule generated a desire for extravagance in fashion.2 When Charles II returned from exile in France, he brought his taste for French luxuries to England. In the latter part of the century, dress would again become more stiffly structured and elaborately embellished (see fig. 4.2). Women’s dress develOttoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure 4.2. Nicolas Arnoult, Le Jeu de Dez, 1687, in Recueil de Modes, tome 3. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France. By the end of the century, French fashion had become much more structured and embellished. The lady’s overskirt is draped to the back revealing a strongly patterned striped underskirt. Both women and the man have a funnel-shaped silhouette, and the gentleman’s coat features decorative horizontal braid and button closures.

oped a very narrow silhouette in the torso. A narrow, funnel-shaped skirt replaced the full skirt of the early Baroque and featured an overskirt gathered up and to the rear. For men, the short doublet was replaced by the waistcoat and coat, both sleeved, and with the lace-cuffed shirt visible. Around 1680 the coat became more fitted in the trunk but with increasing fullness in the skirt, creating a funnel-like silhouette. In this form it was referred to as the justaucorps. Massive curly wigs became fashionable during the 1660s, emulating the long chestnut curls of the young king. As he aged, the wigs became more elaborate and were powdered white, beginning a century of powdered wigs. Hats were also important in this period for men, with wide, soft-brimmed, plumed hats giving way to tall, narrowbrimmed ones, until both were replaced by the tricorne hat at the end of the century. By the late seventeenth century, the mass fashion system was well established as a tool of state policy and control in the court of Louis XIV.3 The rate of change in fashion accelerated. To participate in power one had to be The Seventeenth Century

111

at the court. The nobility were required to spend lavish sums on entertainments and on their wardrobes, which were required to conform to rank, occasion, and season and to change daily. The publication La Mercure Galant, founded in 1672, became the first publication depicting seasonal alterations in dress, as well as other aspects of court life and fashionable taste at Versailles.4 In the 1670s the French state encouraged the printing of fashion plates to promote new fashions. These were then widely sold in France and across Europe.5 This enforced extravagance generated business for the crown’s textile manufactories. The French silk industry, centered at Lyon, became the finest in Europe.

Ottoman Dress

Facing, Figure 4.3. Music in the House of a Notable, in the Album of Sultan Ahmed I, 1603–17. Istanbul, Topkapı Palace Museum Directorate. The dress of this group shows little change from the previous period except in their headgear. The man’s turban is a more irregular shape than earlier examples and the women, unveiled in this private garden, wear small pointed hats. The girl in green at the end of the row of musicians wears a variant with a flat top. Examples of such hats survive in the Topkapı Palace Museum.

112

The arrangement of garments for both men and women continued much as seen in the previous century: layered short and long coats over shirt, vest, and full şalvar pantaloons (see fig. 4.3). The most important early collections of Ottoman garments are in the imperial costume collections of the Topkapı Palace Museum. Most of these garments are not clearly documented, which can make precise dating impossible because the garment forms and materials can be so similar from one period to another. While simpler solid colored and striped fabrics were used in the dress of both the imperial court and the households of ordinary citizens, ceremonial royal robes continued to employ elaborate and often large-scale patterns in silk brocade and velvet, many enriched by gold and silver thread. Imported patterned silks from Italy were used in court dress, a tendency that had begun in the sixteenth century. Italian workshops produced Ottoman designs for this export market.6 In the seventeenth century the Ottoman chronicler Naima expressed concern about importation of luxury goods as a threat to the proper order of Ottoman society and to the Ottoman economy. This could be an indication that new imports were becoming a significant element in personal consumption patterns, although he does not state whether these imports are arriving from the East or West.7 There were some changes in the details of dress, however. The turban forms of sultans varied from earlier forms, and there were changes in the turbans worn by court officials. For court women, the hat that was sometimes worn earlier changed to a much smaller version. There were certainly incentives for women of the harem to find new modes of dress that would capture attention, since attention was the road to power. But in spite of these innovations, the older forms of kaftans and other coats and jackets also continued in use. In the seventeenth century, there appears to have been a relative lack of new sumptuary legislation governing the requirements of dress for the various religious communities and bureaucratic offices within the Ottoman Empire.8 While the contents of the vast Ottoman archives have yet to be exhaustively examined, this lack of new decrees relative to either the sixteenth or eighteenth century may suggest that during this period the classifications of mandated dress were consistent with the social expecta-

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

tions of most Ottoman citizens. This would confirm the visual evidence that dress was still not changing very rapidly.

In Europe, the consolidation of nation-states was a major preoccupation, and Catholic-Protestant conflicts also continued to color political events. England experienced the chaos of a civil war that considerably decreased the power of the English monarchy and increased that of Parliament. Meanwhile the French under Louis XIII laid the foundations for more centralized authority. In 1643 Louis XIV would come to the throne as a child at four years of age and would become one of the longest-ruling monarchs in European history. Throughout the seventeenth century and beyond, the French attempted to maintain friendly relations with the Ottoman Porte, primarily as a counter to Austrian power. In 1688 Louis XIV launched an attack into Germany to reduce Austrian pressure on the Ottoman Empire.9 This effort also relieved the pressure on Protestant William of Orange, leaving him free to invade England and replace James II on the English throne. The Catholic French king thus aided a Muslim ruler against a fellow Catholic, instead of suppressing a Protestant action against a Cath-

The Seventeenth Century

Historical Context

113

olic English king. Political rivalries were of much greater concern than religious principles in this instance. The Ottomans also maintained friendly relations with Poland, whose boundaries in this period extended to the Ottoman border. The English were actively building commercial relations and attempting to maintain good diplomatic ties in Constantinople. However, it was the French whose political interests were most congruent with the Ottomans because of their shared opposition to the Hapsburgs. Ottoman power continued to be considerable, but problems were emerging. The flaws in the Ottoman dynastic system produced a series of weak sultans. There would be fewer military expeditions and fewer battlefield successes. Since the Ottoman Empire was structured to depend on continuous conquest for economic well-being, the domestic economy also began to suffer. Domestic policies and increasing commercial incursions by European merchants also complicated the Ottoman economy. By the end of the century, the limits of Ottoman power would become apparent to all.10 Ottoman armies were now facing refurbished European armies that were superior in tactics, training, and equipment. At St. Gotthard near the Austrian-Hungarian border, in 1663, Christian troops defeated Ottoman troops in a pitched battle for the first time since Suleyman first invaded Hungary, the first of many defeats to come. Vizier Kara Mustafa was determined to succeed in the conquest of Vienna. The result was disastrous. After the Ottoman army had conducted a two-month siege against Vienna, the Polish army led by King Jan Sobieski arrived to attack the Ottoman army from its undefended rear, driving the Turks from the field in complete disarray.11 Kara Mustafa himself barely escaped, carrying only his money and the sacred standard of the Prophet. All the wealth of his encampment was abandoned to the victorious Polish army. The tents were embroidered in silk and cotton and lined with precious carpets for Kara Mustafa and his commanders. A garden had been planted around Kara Mustafa’s tent. The contents included jeweled weapons, rich garments, furs, exotic birds, banners of cloth of gold, and the horsetail standards that represented imperial Ottoman authority. All of this was taken by the victorious Poles and Germans, and much of it is still in the museums of Vienna and Krakow.12 In 1699, the Ottoman government gave up significant territory in the Treaty of Karlowitz. They realized that Europe was surpassing them, but traditionalism made it difficult to enact necessary reforms. European military advisors were haphazardly called in, but nonbelievers were not respected, since historically conversion was the only path to true authority. Most advisors soon returned to Europe, and little progress was made until late in the eighteenth century.13

Trade

The high customs charges along the overland trade routes from the East to the Mediterranean ports controlled by the Ottomans resulted in a 400 114

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

percent increase in silk prices between Persia and Smyrna in the seventeenth century. Similar rates applied to all other commodities. In addition, the dangers of navigating the Ottomancontrolled eastern Mediterranean patrolled by corsair pirates were a great motivation to develop new sea routes to the East. Improvements in ship design and navigation combined with a waning Ottoman presence in the Persian Gulf that no longer inhibited European endeavors.14 Dutch and English commercial bases in the Persian Gulf were not very successful at first.15 However, after 1680 the East India traffic would begin to make inroads in the Levant trade, and the seventeenth century would be the last in which the eastern Mediterranean ports would dominate trade with the East. But for the time being, European fortunes were being made in Aleppo, Smyrna, and Constantinople. For some time, European travelers had brought home pictures of exotically dressed foreigners and the exotic garments as souvenirs. In the seventeenth century, they also had their portraits done wearing these garments, the beginning of a new portrait genre (see fig. 4.4). Most of these travelers were merchants, though some merchants also doubled as envoys to the court at their destination. Descriptions of personal possessions found in inventories tell us that the successful merchant was not only wealthy but also that he was likely to furnish his home with an opulent display of imported goods. A few travelers may only be described as adventurous tourists; Thomas Coryate was among the first to write a travel book truly based on his own adventures that was designed to entertain and did not have the purpose of providing a record of pilgrimage or of commercial or diplomatic endeavors.16 During this period, the main European export to the Levant was fine woolen broadcloth or kersey, a coarser woolen fabric widely used in the daily dress of Ottoman citizens and the army. In this period the Ottoman Empire was the single largest customer for English woolen cloth.17 The importance of this trade can be seen in the fact that England banned the export

Figure 4.4. Peter Paul Rubens (1577–1640), Nicolas de Respaigne, before 1620, oil on canvas, 205.5 × 119.5 cm. Inv. GK 92. Dresden, Gemaeldegalerie Alte Meister, Museumslandschaft Hessen Kassel. (Photo Credit: bpk Bildagentur/Art Resource, New York.) De Respaigne was a successful Flemish merchant in the Levant trade. He is shown here in authentic Ottoman dress, including a costly, large, silk brocade kaftan with coordinating şalvar and a fur-lined outer kaftan with short-notched sleeves. The soft boots, sash, and turban are very authentic. The casually wrapped turban is that of an ordinary Ottoman citizen, not the professionally wrapped turbans worn by government officials.

The Seventeenth Century

115

of raw wool to protect its own textile industry and aggressively sought to create markets for English woolen cloth.18 The French had been trading with the Porte since 1535, the longest of anyone other than the Italians. They were the largest merchant community by the early seventeenth century. In this period the Ottomans came to favor Protestant English and Dutch traders in view of the ongoing conflicts with the Catholic Hapsburgs and Venetians. The Venetian share in the Levant trade declined considerably.19 But the long-standing agreements with the French centered on their shared adversarial relationship with the Hapsburgs, and this sustained French mercantile interests for some time. It has been estimated that at this time about half of all French maritime trade was with the Ottoman Levant.20 Nonetheless, as the century progressed, they were unable to compete effectively with the English and Dutch. In general they brought similar commodities to the Ottoman markets, but the French imports from Smyrna included a half million livres worth of wool each year. While the Dutch and English had colonial markets for their Levant goods and finished products from home, the French had only their domestic market, which was protected by high tariffs. The French also imported silk, mohair, and hides from Smyrna, mostly in exchange for cash. The goods they had to offer the Ottoman market were paper, hardware, and red woolen caps made in Marseilles that were worn by Greeks, Armenians, and some lower-class Turks. Woolen cloth from France could not compete with the Dutch and English wools.21 The English consul in Smyrna and historian of the Ottoman Empire noted that “it can hardly be imagined in this great glut of the Commodityes of Turky through all Parts of Christendom, how the French can thrive thereby, who buy them with good pieces of eight, haveing few commodityes of the growth of their owne Countrey to barter for them.”22 In 1678, the French Levant Company went into liquidation. However, some individual French merchants continued to survive. The primary entrepots of the Levant for European merchants had been Constantinople, Aleppo, Alexandria, and Bursa, but in the seventeenth century the port of Smyrna (Izmir) came to replace much of this older trade. Cotton had traditionally traveled from India via the Red Sea to Alexandria or via the Persian Gulf to Aleppo, but now the caravans brought these goods to Smyrna, the westernmost Ottoman port. Fine Indian muslins were used for the turbans of the Muslim elite, and coarser calicos were imported for the general population. These fabrics were still viewed as a luxurious novelty in Europe, and cotton had been widely thought to be a kind of wool. In 1601, it was reported that “about twenty yeeres past [c 1601] diverse people in this Kingdome, but chiefly in the Countie of Lancaster, have found out the trade of making other Fustians (cloth woven of linen and wool previously), made of a kind of Bombast or Downe, being a fruit of the earth growing upon little shrubs or bushes, brought into this Kingdome by the Turkie Merchants from Smyrna, Cyprus, Acra and Sydon, but commonly called Cotton Wooll.”23 Throughout this century, the import trade in Indian cottons via Ottoman ports continued to be vigorous, in spite of the growing mercantile 116

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

success of the English East India Company in buying up raw cotton in India.24 Increasingly, European merchants sought cotton fiber and thread, rather than cloth, to supply their industries at home. Cotton was now also being grown in the Smyrna region, a cash crop that replaced food crops with the encouragement of foreign merchants. In Ottoman markets by this time Europeans in fact preferred raw materials of all kinds rather than finished goods.25 Intermittent warfare between the Ottomans and Safavid Persia periodically disrupted the Persian silk caravans on the southeastern route to Aleppo, and they began to visit Smyrna instead, adding Persian silk to the wool, cotton, and other commodities available there. Silk dominated the trade by the 1630s.26 Most of it came overland from Persia. It accounted for at least half of the English Levant Company’s exports from Turkey. In a one-year period during 1668–69, England imported 249,502 pounds of silk from Turkey.27 This silk was termed either Sherbasse, a fine silk used for surface brocade, or Ardasse, which was coarser and probably raised in Turkey. Being of poorer quality, Turkish silk was less desirable.28 Sherbasse sold for one pound sterling per pound of silk while Ardasse sold for half that value. This was traded for goods favored by the Persians: currency, English and Dutch cloth, and French hardware including mirrors, scissors, needles, pins, knives, rings, necklaces, and enamels. For twenty years the leading English firms at Smyrna retained a factor to intercept the Persian caravans at Angora (Ankara), only twelve days’ ride away, but the Levant Company maintained no presence in Persia. In 1621, Louis Deshayes, Baron de Courmenin, visited Smyrna on his way to Jerusalem and noted that “at present, Izmire has a great traffick in wool, beeswax, cotton, and silk, which the Armenians bring there instead of going to Aleppo. It is more advantageous for them to go there because they do not pay as many dues. There are several merchants, more French than Venetian, English or Dutch, who live in great freedom.”29 One reason for this relative freedom was that, as Smyrna grew from a sleepy provincial Turkish town in the 1580s to a bustling cosmopolitan city in the mid-seventeenth century, the influx of merchants, financiers, and workers came primarily from the non-Muslim minorities of the empire. And Smyrna offered other advantages. There was less control of both trade in Smyrna and of access to the hinterland beyond, where commodities might be sought to better advantage at the source. European merchants began to seek raw cotton where it was grown along the Aegean coast. They could outbid the Ottoman merchants there and still buy at a far better price than in the city markets. This redirection of raw materials would cause serious difficulties for domestic industries, which could not source necessary supplies or compete with European goods and prices. By 1650 European merchants were also introducing new crops such as tobacco, leading to further reductions of food crop production needed to support urban populations, especially that of Constantinople. The poverty of Anatolia noted by so many later travelers may have been at least partially a result of the commercial activities of Europeans in the region beginning in this The Seventeenth Century

117

period.30 For a variety of reasons Ottoman economic policies could not relieve the problems of domestic industries in the smaller towns of Anatolia affected by these incursions. However, the enormous Ottoman economy involved many production and trade relationships that did not involve Europeans. The economy continued to function in spite of these dislocations in older patterns of production and commerce.31 In 1621 a twelfth- to thirteenth-century palazzo on the Grand Canal in Venice became the Fondaco dei Turchi, that is, the warehouse and residence of the Muslim Turkish merchant community in Venice. It would be retained by the Turks for this purpose until 1835. Similar fondacos were maintained by other foreign mercantile communities. Ottoman Christian and Jewish merchants were generally housed with their coreligionists; sizable Greek, Balkan, and Armenian communities were to be found in Venice. As a result in this port, and no doubt in others, Ottoman travelers were often seen in the streets and were active participants in the Levant trade.32 By the 1670s West Indian cotton imports to Europe began to reduce the importance of cotton in the Levant trade. Mohair became of greater interest because it was a unique product of Anatolia. This term usually referred to the hair of the Angora goat, which only lived and thrived in the semiarid climate of the Anatolian plateau, in spite of European attempts to transplant it. Occasionally the term might refer to camel hair, which came by caravan from eastern Anatolia and Persia and was used to supplement the limited supply of mohair. The fiber was locally spun into yarn or woven into camlets (100 percent mohair) and grograms (blends of silk and mohair, considered inferior). Factors sought raw mohair but often had to settle for yarn.33 Carpets were another increasingly important and valuable commodity that was primarily Anatolian in origin at this date. Relatively few luxury goods related to dress appear to be noted as part of exports to the regular Ottoman markets until after 1700, although the collections at Topkapı reveal that the court was buying a considerable amount of the best Italian silk cloth.34

Exchanges of Cultural Ideas: Literature, Humanities, and the Arts

European literature, theater, and music continued to incorporate Turkish and Muslim themes. Orientalist scholarship increased in the seventeenth century not only because of the continuing military, diplomatic, and commercial interactions between East and West, but also because the decline of the Ottoman military threat permitted more positive contact. Orientalist Thomas van Erpe was pleased to encounter a Muslim merchant from Morocco in the Netherlands in 1611, and Eastern Christian Maronite scholars traveled to the West to seek rapprochement with their Catholic counterparts. The mid-seventeenth century was also the period of the travels of Evliya Celebi, a Turk whose extensive travels throughout the Ottoman Empire and parts of Europe were recorded in the Seyahatname, the first travel account written in Turkish. He was also the first Turkish scholar to show any interest in European languages.35 New centers of Orientalist study were founded in Rome in 1627 and at Oxford in 1638. The first English 118

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

version of the Koran was published in 1649, translated from an earlier French version.36 Barthélemy d’Herbelot’s Bibliothèque orientale published in 1697 could be viewed as the precursor of the Encyclopedia of Islam.37 Changes to the political and cultural climate meant it was no longer necessary to formulate studies of Islamic culture according to prescribed theological or political positions. Although the loyalties or religious convictions of the author might be declared in a preface, the work could be framed in a more objective manner, though of course still subject to the personal biases of the scholar. The Ottoman world was more likely to be viewed as a picturesque and exotic source of literary and visual fantasy. Travel accounts also continued to be an important form of literature, with many published in multiple languages.38 Italian publications of Turkish tales and histories included romances, with the theme of La Turca Fedele (The Faithful Turkish Lady) addressed by a number of writers. Another popular theme was that of conversion, epitomized by Robert Daborne’s A Christian Turned Turk (1610) or Philip Massinger’s The Renegado (1624). These topics were inspired by genuine examples of European men and women who were taken captive and forced to convert or, in some instances, voluntarily converted in order to obtain employment or to marry. The theater of this period is of particular interest, since popular theatrical productions and actors, then as now, had significant influence on fashion. Masquerade was also a popular diversion, characterized by the theatrical excesses in costume interpretation. In this period the use of Turkish elements in music or costume was often stylized and not always obvious to the modern eye, although the exotic elements were surely very apparent to contemporaneous audiences more attuned to the details of current fashion. In 1615 a ballet was commissioned for performance at the Pitti Palace in Florence during Carnival entitled The Ballet of the Turkish Ladies. Not only do the score and choreography survive but the writers also provided extensive details regarding costume with a number of rather fanciful but exotic elements. These included a silk brimless headdress embellished with tall plumes and jewels, worn over unbound hair, and an ensemble that apparently resembled the chemise and overskirt of a village woman with a kneelength overgown in “Hungarian style,” embellished with Turkish motifs and gold buttons, worn over all. The men’s costumes, featuring Ottomanstyle turbans and coats, are described as having been even more accurate.39 Productions containing themes and characters with Turkish or Muslim origins became very popular. In 1672 Racine produced a tragedy entitled Bejazet that he claimed to have carefully researched. The subject was the defeat of the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid at the hands of Tamerlane in 1402. This was a popular subject taken up by many playwrights, clearly intended to gratify the European desire to see that Turkish power had its limits. This and other historic themes with similar messages depicting tragic flaws in Ottoman heroes were developed by many playwrights and librettists not only in France but also in Italy and England.40 Osman, the founder of the The Seventeenth Century

119

Figure 4.5. Jacques Callot (French, 1592–1635), Solimano, first act, c. 1620, etching, 10.75 × 7.5 in. Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Art Gallery. Acquired by the Henry Clay Frick Fine Arts Department from Theodore Huminski, 1947. This is a set design for the play by Prospero Bonarelli. Sultan Suleyman I was the subject of numerous theatrical productions. The costumes in this Italian production appear fairly authentic.

120

Ottoman house, and Mehmet II, conqueror of Constantinople, were the subjects of dramatic works. A history of Kara Mustafa Grand Vizier was published in both French and Italian in 1686, and his failure at the Battle of Vienna was promptly the subject of a number of plays across Europe. The 1683 siege of Vienna was staged as an opera within three years after the event.41 Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent was the subject of numerous productions (see fig. 4.5). On the famous occasion when Evelyn reported that Charles II went to the theater in his new vest in the “Persian” style, the play he saw was Roger Boyle’s Mustapha—an interesting coincidence.42 This play apparently had a long run, as Samuel Pepys seems to have seen it several times between 1665 and 1667. His first time was also attended by the king but was before the event of the king’s new vest.43 At the request of the king, Molière incorporated Turkish characters in the final scene of his 1670 play, Le Bourgeois gentilhomme (see fig. 4.6).44 He wrote it less than a year after the sensational visit of the Ottoman envoy and his retainers in 1669. Molière even included pseudo-Turkish phrases in the Oriental scene,45 an affectation thought to have been inspired by the much more extensive (and grammatically accurate) scene in the 1645 play La Soeur by Rotrou.46 A number of other playwrights also made use of Turkish dialogue and characters, and the habit of introducing Turkish characters during musical interludes or finales continued.47 In Italy, Turk-

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure 4.6. Illustration from Le Bourgeois gentilhomme by Molière. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Bibliothèque-musée de l’opéra. This play was written as a satire on social climbing. In the play’s final scene, the daughter’s lover disguises himself as a son of the Turkish sultan to trick her father.

ish themes and characters continued to be extremely common in commedia dell’arte productions during the early seventeenth century.48 Music was another important area of Ottoman and Moorish influence. Ottoman street musicians are depicted in seventeenth-century paintings of Venice, confirming their presence there. The sound of the Janissary military bands, familiar since the Ottoman invasion of Europe, had long inspired dread and amazement on the battlefield (see fig. 2.7). Spanish music

The Seventeenth Century

121

Left, Figure 4.7. Peter Paul Rubens, Eight Turkish Women, 1610–15 (artwork © Trustees of the British Museum). Rubens meticulously researched Eastern dress. These sketches were copied from two different late sixteenth-century sources. In the top line the women are on their way to the public baths. The images below depict a gypsy, a Jewish woman, a lady of the imperial harem, and her servant. Right, Figure 4.8. Rembrandt van Rijn, Four Orientals Seated under a Tree, c. 1656 (artwork © Trustees of the British Museum). This drawing is thought to be a study of an early seventeenth-century Moghul painting now in the Nationalbibliothek in Vienna. It is believed to have influenced the etching of Abraham and the Angels, which was done after 1656. Like Rubens, Rembrandt conscientiously studied eyewitness images of Eastern dress.

also had strong evidence of exposure to Moorish music, which can be clearly heard in early Spanish court music. Davenant’s Siege of Rhodes (1656), sometimes described as the first English opera, features Suleyman the Magnificent as a “more or less noble Turk” and uses Turkish musical turns.49 It was a major sensation; Samuel Pepys saw it at least three times.50 By the end of the century, both the Turkish musical instruments and tonal effects were part of European musical repertoire. In the fine arts, Muslim images continued to be used as they had been: that is, to mark “Oriental” figures in religious paintings, as the exotic content of paintings commemorating military or diplomatic events, and occasionally as a record of actual places and people. Peter Paul Rubens, unlike Bellini and some others, never visited the Ottoman Empire, but as in ev122

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

erything he did he meticulously researched the dress of the East. He maintained a notebook of drawings that has come to be known as his costume book. It is now in the British Museum, though it has been published in facsimile (see fig. 4.7).51 Middle Eastern dress occasionally appears in Rubens’s paintings, for example, in his Hippopotamus and Crocodile Hunt, any of his Adoration of the Magi paintings, and in Tamyris with the Head of Cyrus.52 Rembrandt van Rijn had a fascination with exotic dress, particularly turbans and other headgear, that is evident in many of his paintings. Like Rubens, he studied eyewitness images of Eastern dress in order to capture the most authentic representations possible (see fig. 4.8). Classical references might be mixed with Oriental references, as the growing field of classical scholarship in art and archaeology as well as letters generated a growing interest in and awareness of Greco-Roman forms of dress and architecture, as distinguished from the dress of current inhabitants of the Holy Land. A curious botanical exchange occurred in the seventeenth century that became a lucrative commercial venture and also established an important cultural symbol for two countries. Tulips were native throughout Anatolia and Central Asia. The first tulips were imported from Turkey to Flanders in the sixteenth century by Ogier Ghiselen de Busbecq, the previously mentioned ambassador from Ferdinand of Austria to Sultan Suleyman I. The European term for this flower derived from the Ottoman (and Persian) term tülbent, a term for the “turban,” the shape of which the flower resembles. The importation of tulips into the Netherlands began in the first decade of the century and by the 1630s had become a mania that spread across Europe and in which financial speculation generated enormous fortunes.53 Tulips with values comparable to diamonds were worn at the wedding of Louis XIII. The Turkish response to this was an equivalent mania for the tulip, which was named lale in Turkish, and had been long viewed as sacred because of the similarity of its written and spoken name to “Allah.” Following this craze, a period in eighteenth-century Ottoman court culture would come to be known as the lale devri or the tulip era. This flower became a lasting national symbol for both Turkey and the Netherlands.

The seventeenth century saw increasing diplomatic and trade activity that brought Turks to the streets of Europe and put European travelers into Turkish dress, increasing awareness of these exotic forms beyond the pictorial examples that had previously been the primary form of sartorial information. The diarist John Evelyn visited Italy in 1645. In Bologna Evelyn was very impressed by his first sighting of a Persian who was “walking about in a very rich vest of cloth of tissue, and severall other ornaments according to the fashion of their Country, which did exceedingly please me, he was a young handsome person of the most stately mien I had ever observed.” In Venice he subsequently notes with less detail, “Nor was I less surpriz’d with The Seventeenth Century

Diplomats, Adventurers, and Merchants

123

the strange variety of the severall Nations which we every day met with in the streetes & Piazza of Jewes, Turks, Armenians, Persians, Moores, Greekes, Sclavonians, some with their Targets and boucklers, & all in their native fashions, negotiating in this famous emporium, which is allways crowded with strangers.” Evelyn also comments on the official robes of the Doge and his court as being “after the Eastern” in fashion.54 He even indulged himself on his first day in Venice by going to visit a bathhouse operated “in the Eastern manner” where he underwent an exfoliating treatment “of Turkish origin”55—something that tourists in Turkey can still have done in a Turkish bath. Thomas Coryate offered a similar description of seeing Ottomans in Venice.56 Following the 1683 defeat of the Turks at Vienna, a German merchant brought the spoils of a Turkish pasha to London, together with three Turkish horses. Even the king came out to inspect the goods. In addition to the very fine horses, Evelyn described in detail the accompanying articles: Add to all this, the Furniture which consisting of Embrodrie on the Saddle, Housse, Quiver, bow, Arrows, Symeter, Sword, Mace or Battel ax a la Tur(c)isque: the Bashaws Velvet Mantle furr’d with the most perfect Ermine I ever beheld, . . . Such, and so actraordinary was the Embrodery, as I never before saw any thing approching it . . . by which one may estimate how gallantly & magnificently those Infidels appeare in the fild, for nothing could certainely be seene more glorious, the Gent: (a German) who rid the horse, being in all this garb.57

Evelyn also described the attire of a Moorish ambassador and his retinue. He was impressed by their demeanor and appearance, which he compared to that of the ancient Romans, noting the loose “cassock,” mantle, and turbans, as well as their “naked limbs.” Their presence apparently caused quite a stir in court, to the point where the tumult interfered with their presentation. The ambassador conversed with the king through an English “renegado” slave whom he promised would be returned to his native land.58 European captives sold as slaves could regain their freedom through conversion but often remained in the service of their master because of their special skills. They could achieve high status and commensurate rewards. Such “renegados” might eventually return to their homeland, where they could find themselves valued as experts on the Muslim world. Henry Blount was an Englishman who visited Constantinople in 1634. He traveled from Venice in the company of a Janissary guide and other Turks and Levantines, wearing Eastern dress. Although in the previous century most European travelers seem to have stuck to their own dress, it had apparently been concluded since then that Ottoman dress was required for the safety of European travelers when in Muslim areas. It was also true that Europeans were traveling further into the country than most had previously. Even in the capital it was apparently inadvisable to appear in European dress in Muslim parts of the city. On arriving in Constantinople, Blount reported that “for the chiefe time I had to view [the city] was my first two dayes, when I lodged in the Hane of Mehemet Basha; afterward I 124

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

shifted into Christian habit, and went over to Galata, where I was very courteously entertained in the house of an English Gentleman.”59 JeanBaptiste Tavernier, who traveled beyond Constantinople to Persia, recommended that: When you go from Constantinople, Smyrna, or Aleppo with the Caravan, it behoves all people to carry themselves according to the mode of the country; in Turkie like a Turk, in Persia as a Persian; else would they be accounted ridiculous; nay sometimes they would hardly be permitted to pass in some places, where the least miscarriage makes the Government jealous, who are easily persuaded to take Strangers for spies. Always, if you have upon the Road but an Arabian vest, with a mean girdle, whatever clothes you wear under, there is no danger of passing anywhere. If you wear a Turbant, you must of necessity shave your head. As for beard, they never mind them in Turquie, the greatest being accounted the handsomest; but in Persia they shave their beards and wear their moustaches.60

Smyrna, however, was more relaxed, having attained city status in this century because of foreign trade. Even so, many Europeans chose to wear the more comfortable, loose Turkish garments, but most chose to forgo the turban in favor of their European hats, which advertised their origins, and allowed them to keep their hair.61 These travelers who saw advantages in Ottoman dress would have brought these forms home with them. Few European women made the journey to the Levant. As a result, knowledge of men’s dress was more accurate than knowledge of women’s fashion. The English Levant Company factors in Smyrna started to bring their wives with them by the 1650s. These European women were able to mix socially with the Ottoman Christian women of the city. However, thereafter the presence of English women was discouraged by the company as improper.62 Only wives of ambassadors and their attendants traveled out to the region. None of them wrote memoirs, although a few are mentioned in the memoirs of others. Lady Anne Glover, wife of the British ambassador, lived in Istanbul between 1606 and her death in 1608. She visited the ladies of the imperial harem at least once and reported to her husband that differences in their clothing aroused mutual curiosity. However, since she did not survive to return to London, what she saw of Turkish women’s dress had no effect on English fashion, though perhaps hers influenced the Turkish women she met. The wife of another ambassador, Sir Peter Wych (1638– 39), was also invited to the harem with her attendants.63 Liaisons between Muslim women and foreign Christians were punishable by death in the Ottoman Empire.64 Marriages with foreign nonMuslim women were severely discouraged by European authorities, especially after 1677, when the sultan decreed that anyone who married a Turkish subject became a Turkish subject. However, the ambassador and merchant Robert Shirley did marry a Persian woman, Teresa Sampsonia, a Circassian Christian who was alleged to be a relative of a wife of the shah (see fig. 4.9a and b). They returned to London, where their child was born.65 Their Catholic leanings did not help their embassy from the shah to the The Seventeenth Century

125

Figure 4.9a. Sir Anthony Van Dyck (1599–1641), Sir Robert Shirley (1581–1628) (artwork © National Trust Images/ Derrick E. Witty). Although these ensembles have much in common with Turkish forms of dress, there are differences. The gold coat Sir Robert wears over his shoulders has the asymmetrical wrapped side closure typical of Persian outer coats. Lady Shirley’s gown appears to have no front opening, which is also a feature of Persian costume. There are also differences in the style of their turban and headdress.

English court. However, there was a great public sensation around the Shirleys, who appeared in public in their Persian dress, something previously unseen that far west. Lady Shirley may have been the first Persian to take up residence in a European country. In spite of these rare exceptions, the opportunity for direct observation of women’s clothing remained limited, and European understanding of Ottoman women’s dress was still derived mainly from hearsay. Although the Ottoman court did not maintain permanent embassies in European courts, envoys were sent from the Ottoman court to European capitals from time to time. Envoys often brought clothing as part of the 126

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure 4.9b. Sir Anthony Van Dyck (1599–1641), Teresa, Lady Shirley (d. 1668). West Sussex, Petworth House (artwork © National Trust Images/Derrick E. Witty).

royal gifts, just as kaftans continued to be presented to European envoys received by the sultan and other high officials (see fig. 4.10). The Dauphin, for example, was presented with two gold and silver embroidered kaftans in 1687 by an envoy from the sultan.66 These envoys might be Ottoman officials or merchants with experience in European ports who were engaged to carry letters, secure agreements, and arrange for the exchange of prisoners of war. For example, envoys were sent to France by Mehmed  III, to Henri IV in 1601, and to Louis XIII in 1607 and 1640. Mehmed IV sent one to Louis XIV in 1669. In 1665 a full ambassador with a suite of 150 retainers visited Vienna to sign a treaty.67 A large Ottoman mission also came to The The Seventeenth Century

127

Figure 4.10. Paul Tafferner, Walter, Count of Leslie, frontispiece of Cæsarea legatio, quam, mandante, 1668 (artwork © The British Library). Leslie married into a noble family with a history of diplomacy in the Ottoman Empire. He served as ambassador to the Ottoman Porte on behalf of Austrian Emperor Leopold I in 1665–66. He successfully negotiated a peace treaty with Sultan Mehmed IV. This portrait commemorated that journey. He wears the Ottoman robes of honor presented to him and holds the sultan’s letter to his emperor.

Hague in 1614. Ottomans must have been fairly frequent visitors to a variety of places because Coryate, when describing the turban he observed in his travels, casually refers his reader to the example of turbans, “whereof many have bin often worne by the Turkes in London.”68 Persian envoys accompanied Anthony Shirley to the courts of Europe in 1602–3. When Robert Shirley was in London in 1625 on another mission from the shah, a Persian envoy, possibly without credentials, appeared at court and caused 128

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure 4.11. Nicolas Bonnart, Homme en Robe de Chambre, in Recueil des modes de la cour de France, 1676. (Courtesy Los Angeles County Museum of Art.) The print’s caption identifies it as “d’Armenien.” Stripes were a common feature of Ottoman dress and were rare in fashionable European dress before this period.

a stir by declaring Robert Shirley an imposter. The Persian envoys and the audacious Shirley brothers in their Persian dress created an intermittent sensation in London and elsewhere during the first quarter of the century, even though their efforts to encourage trade and diplomacy with Persia came to nothing.69

A number of travelers to the Orient, whether to Ottoman, Persian, or Indian lands, had their portraits done in their exotic costumes and may have continued to wear parts of them. By the 1660s, loose dressing gowns to be worn by both men and women at home became a fashion (see fig. 4.11). These dressing gowns might be called banyans if worn by men or manteaux (manto in England) if worn by women. Artists also promoted a similar garment for use in portraits, sometimes referred to as an “artistic vest (or gown)” often made locally of plain silk. This sort of dress was thought to The Seventeenth Century

Borrowings from the East in Dress

129

Figure 4.12a. Pieter Hendricksz Schut, Vertrek van Karel II uit Scheveningen naar Engeland, (detail) 1660. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum. These soldiers wear the cassock popular with the military of this time, which buttons down the side and has removable sleeves so that it may be worn as a coat or as a cloak. Some have partly detached their sleeves so that the garment is slung over the shoulders like a cloak and some are wearing their sleeves. This is closer to the functional construction of Ottoman coats than the decorative hanging sleeves seen in the sixteenth century and earlier.

130

be both graceful and timeless. Pepys bought what he called Indian gowns and posed for a portrait in one hired for the sitting.70 There was a particular fashion for dressing gowns made of painted Indian cottons.71 Although these gowns might be imported from India, the Levant, or occasionally from points further east, they were certainly widely made locally. As is so often the case, the provenance of these gowns was vague, even if imported. Pepys described going to visit Sir Phillip Howard who was dressed “in a gown and turban like a Turk.”72 There is also a reference to a rare collection of Chinese “vests” admired by Evelyn: “glorious Vests, wrought and embrodered on cloth of Gold, but with such lively colours, as for splendor and vividnesse we have nothing Europe approches: a Girdill studdied with achats, & balast rubies of great value & size . . . also Flowers, Trees, Beasts, birds &c: exellently wrought in a kind of sleve-silk [a very fine embroidery thread] very naturall.”73 Evelyn states that these and other articles were “sent from the Jesuits of Japan & China” but there is no evidence in this passage that suggests a Japanese origin over a Chinese one. Furthermore, the editor of this edition of Evelyn’s diaries points out that “there had been no Jesuits in Japan since 1638, when the country was closed to Christians.” Thus, it seems more likely that these articles were Chinese rather than Japanese, although very limited Dutch trade in Japanese goods did continue after this date.74 Clearly the fashion for exotic dressing gowns included articles with a wide variety of origins or inspiration. Then as now the terminology of fashion was intended more to capture the imagination of the moment than it was intended to accurately document provenance. In any case the roots of clothing forms among the Ottomans, Persians, and Muslims of India were related, involving very similar forms and arrangements of layered Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure 4.12b. Jacques Callot, “Map of the Siege of Breda,” etching (detail) the Netherlands (1624–25), 1628. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum.

coats common to their Central Asian nomadic origins. Even the Japanese kimono was worn by a people that in ancient times migrated from Central Asia to the Japanese Islands via Manchuria and Korea.75 At this time, however, items described as Indian had an undeniable prestige. In the later seventeenth century, although direct contact with India was still somewhat limited, Indian goods were the new commodity and so in high demand, whether arriving by sea around Africa or via Ottoman ports in the Mediterranean. In the seventeenth century the new printed and painted cottons were particularly desirable. It is also likely that most of the banyans worn by the fashionable were made up in London or Paris, a domestic product then sold with the exotic cachet of the imported prototype in a time when Indian goods were still not within easy commercial reach. The adoption of national military uniforms in the later seventeenth century reflected Ottoman models in a number of ways. The description in chapter 3 of radical military dress by companies posted along the AustrianThe Seventeenth Century

131

Figure 4.13. Louis Laguerre (1663–1721), The Battle of Malplaquet, September 11, 1709, oil on canvas, 1713. London, National Army Museum. National uniforms were well established by this date. Note the Austrian uniforms in the center and to the left with their tall pointed hats and the English on the right in tricornes. The Dutch are in blue. Horizontal gold braid trim is visible on many coats on all sides. Compare these with depictions of Janissary uniforms in figure 3.6.

132

Ottoman frontier in the sixteenth century was a striking example of how choices in dress gravitated toward models of power and success. The close regulation of dress for all ranks of the Ottoman military made a strong impression on European observers. The use of coordinated liveries in Europe for the guard of a princely household begins as early as the fifteenth century with the badges worn by the household of a nobleman or prince. In the early seventeenth century, liveried household guards were the style, but military companies wore fairly individualized apparel, with colors, badges, or capes used to mark special companies such as the King’s Musketeers (see fig. 4.12a and b, and 4.13). So long as armor was still worn, the idea of a standardized uniform did not take hold.76 By the last quarter of the seventeenth century, France had established a standing national army, paid and equipped by taxes and wearing a national uniform. This was the first such military organization and national uniform in Europe, which were soon emulated by other nations (see fig. 4.13).77 Evelyn, when visiting France, describes the new military uniforms: “the new sort of soldiers . . . called Grenadiers, who were dexterous in flinging

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Left, Figure 4.14a. Nicolas de Nicolay, A Janissary (detail), in Discovrs et histoire veritable des navigations, peregrinations et voyages, faicts en la Tvrqvie, 1577. This janissary of the previous century wears a short-sleeved coat, revealing the undercoat sleeve, but not his shirt. The corners of his coat are tucked up as are those of the Dutch gentleman nearly a century later. Fuller trousers were worn by Turks, though not by this soldier. Right, Figure 4.14b. Romain de Hooghe, The Mode, c. 1682–1702 (made) (artwork © Victoria and Albert Museum, London). This European gentleman of fashion wears a coat with the corners tucked up, vest, and knee-length full trousers. Sleeve lengths are layered for display, and the shirt shows its Baroque ruffles and lace. The elaborate ribbons, braid, and lace are entirely European, but the overall organization of the garments is very similar to that of the earlier janissary.

hand grenades, everyone having a pouch full; they had furred caps with coped crowns like Janizaries, which made them look very fierce.”78 Probably the most notorious example of Eastern influence in Western dress is the emergence of the men’s three-piece suit. The appearance of this style in 1666 is well documented in the diaries of Pepys and Evelyn. The essential components that made the new combination were the shirt that had by now been exposed as a garment of fashion and not merely underwear, the vest or waistcoat, the outer coat, and the cravat. Coats had been an element of fashion since the fifteenth century, worn over the basic fashionable ensembles by some men and women, and also

The Seventeenth Century

133

adopted by soldiers. However, for men, the fundamental garments remained the doublet and hose, until the emergence of breeches at the beginning of the seventeenth century. In the 1620s, gentlemen might wear a hunting coat with a fur lining, whereas soldiers adopted a variant referred to as the cassock (fig. 4.12a).79 Such coats came to be worn indoors by 1660 because the doublet had shrunk to the point where it provided little warmth and exposed much of the previously hiddeshirt. Since the shirt was still viewed as an undergarment, many found its exposure immodest. Pepys recorded wearing a coat instead of a doublet over his shirt in 1661, calling it the new fashion.80 Soldiers had often worn their long outer coat without the doublet in the summer, and this may have been the precedent.81 The corners of the coat were often turned up over the full breeches. Worn in this way, the resemblance to the Janissary coat is striking (see fig. 4.14a). After the plague and fire of London in 1665–66, it was widely felt that the licentiousness of the court, including dress, had brought down God’s wrath on the city. King Charles II did announce a reform, which was to be a more modest “vest,” an item which Pepys was curious about when he heard the king announce it, as this was a term usually associated with Eastern garments (see fig. 4.14b).82 John Evelyn reported that he had presented the king with a copy of his pamphlet making a case for dress reform and recommending the virtues of the “Persian” vest. Evelyn had seen Persians in Bologna and Venice in 1645.83 In his diary he wondered to himself whether his suggestion had inspired the new fashion. Whether this was the case is unknown. Examples of Turkish dress were also commonly seen in court festivities and on the stage, as described above. In Davenant’s opera The Siege of Rhodes, first performed in 1656, the lead actor Betterton wore a turban and Turkish vest as did, presumably, the rest of the men playing Turkish roles. This vest worn by Betterton was described as a long, coat-like garment that came to the knee (possibly shorter than a real Turkish kaftan).84 Pepys saw The Siege of Rhodes performed by the Duke of York’s company on at least four occasions in 1661 and 1662 and also refers to its performance in 1667— clearly a popular production. The king’s new vest was to be worn over the shirt as a more modest covering to that controversial garment, which could then be topped with an outer coat of the same length and color, a layering of garments similar to the Ottoman model of layered coats. This was worn with matching breeches that were somewhat less full than the extravagant petticoat breeches that had been the fashion. The entire ensemble was to be made in one fabric, initially in a sober, solid color such as black or brown, although the vest and sometimes the outer coat soon used a richer fabric; thus, the concept of a suit was born.85 Evelyn’s first sighting of Charles II’s new vest was at a performance of a play entitled Mustapha on October 18, 1666.86 The play by Roger Boyle, Earl of Orrery, was based on the tragedy of Sultan Suleyman and the execution of his eldest son for treason. It was first played before the king more than a

134

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

year before, in 1665, so this was his second viewing.87 This event was an interesting choice for the public display of this particular new fashion, first worn at court only three days before. It is worth noting that while his diary entry is frequently cited as evidence that Pepys saw the king in his new suit on October 15, it would appear from his phrasing that he did not see the king in person that day. He tells us, “This day the King begins to put on his Vest, and I did see several persons of the House of Lords, and commons too, great courtiers, who are in it.” However, since he had also heard the king announce his new fashion on October 8 and on October 13 (Saturday) had seen the Duke of York trying on his new vest, because all of the court and the king would be in the new vest “Monday next” (October 15), this latter date would seem to be the first wearing, and the evening of the play (October 18) was the first public appearance. It is apparent from this chronology that the king planned the introduction of his new fashion carefully, with a determination that it be widely noticed and adopted.88 The Eastern provenance of the concept of a layered vest and coat over breeches and shirt is certainly not specifically Persian. Persian male dress from this period most often featured an asymmetrical closure, essentially double-breasted in terms of Western fashion parlance. Therefore, the center closing of the new “vest” more closely resembled the symmetrical Turkish coats. Although European exposure to Persians and their culture had been and still was very limited, there had been a significant degree of interaction with the Ottomans in international affairs, culture, and commerce for a long time. The French were not pleased by this new English sartorial invention, which challenged French fashion leadership. Adoption of the new coat and vest was attributed to other sources in the court of Louis XIV. Even so, an Eastern inspiration was offered. Polish inspiration was also cited, but it should be kept in mind that due to the long diplomatic and commercial connection between Poland and the Ottoman Empire, Polish court dress strongly resembled Ottoman dress at this time. In any case, the new suit caught on and became the universal standard of European fashion for men by 1670.89 The final element of the new male ensemble was the cravat. There are various stories as to its origins, and neck cloths have been worn by various people throughout history. One explanation is that the English, during their civil war, found the long ends of their falling bands inconvenient and took to tying them around the neck.90 However, it is also reputed to have been adopted from a scarf worn knotted about the neck by Croatian soldiers and to have first appeared in the middle of the seventeenth century as a French military affectation.91 Croatian troops fought for the French during the Thirty Years’ War (1618–48). The purpose of the scarf was to protect the collar from perspiration. Louis XIII had employed a guard regiment of Croatians (known in French as Cravate), and an elite guard known as the Cravate Royale was said to have been maintained until the French Revolution of 1789. On the other hand, it has also been suggested that the

The Seventeenth Century

135

Figure 4.15. John Michael Wright, The Family of Sir Robert Vyner, c. 1673 (artwork © National Portrait Gallery, London). This English family is wearing the loose version of the manto, or manteau, also referred to as an artistic gown. In this period, the draped garment was popular for portraits but considered too informal for court wear.

136

term instead derived from an alleged Ottoman term kyrabacs, or the Hungarian korbacs, a term that allegedly denotes a long slender object. The term kyrabacs is definitely not Turkish but might be from a language spoken by another ethnic group in the Ottoman Empire, as Hungarian was at this time. In any case, an Eastern origin for the fashionable cravat seems likely.92 At the time of the adoption of the suit, the cravat was also adopted as the proper neckwear for the new ensemble. Although fashion would continue to alter its shape, color, and materials, this ensemble became quite fixed in terms of its component parts: coat, vest, trousers, shirt, and necktie. Another century would be needed to bring it to a form fully recognizable as the modern business suit, uniform of the industrial era—but the elements were in place. By the nineteenth century, this Near Eastern contribution to Western dress would return in its new shape to its land of origin as part of a broader set of reforms. In women’s fashions there were comparable references to exotic origins. However, since exposure to feminine Eastern dress was limited, the borrowings were not so literal. The short, loose jackets, usually fur lined, that were adopted by Dutch women in the middle of the century were similar to those worn by Ottoman women. The active Dutch Levant trade brought substantial quantities of Ottoman goods to the Netherlands and was an important element of the Dutch economy and culture at this time.

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure 4.16. Costume de femme. Deshabillé d’Hyver, 1678–79. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France. This fashion plate shows the overskirt of a manteau gathered up and draped to the back to expose the decorative underskirt. This is worn with a cloth of gold belt or sash, the ends of which are visible over her hip. The upper part of the manteau is fitted to the body and has a shorter sleeve, under which the sleeve of her chemise is visible. This is recommended for informal wear, not for court dress.

Around 1670, European women began to adopt the manteau (in English, the mantua or manto), a loose gown that might have had a foreign origin but was probably most often made by local dressmakers. It was equivalent to the banyan adopted by men and with equally exotic provenance. Louis XIV disapproved of it for wear at court because its loose form suggested the boudoir.93 However, the manteau continued to be in vogue for informal wear away from court and also for portraiture (see fig. 4.15). By the 1670s, the upper part of the manteau became closely fitted to the body and became more widely accepted as part of fashionable public dress. In the middle of the century, a symmetrical lifting of the overskirt, sometimes in conjunction with masquerade, was done as an exotic effect. By 1670 the fitted upper bodice of the manteau resulted in an overskirt that was open down the front, and this overskirt began to be lifted and draped to the back. This asymmetrical arrangement revealed the decoration of an underskirt layer and appeared not long after the emergence of the fashion-

The Seventeenth Century

137

Figures 4.17a and 4.17b. Nicolas Arnoult, Dressing à la Sultane, Lady of Quality Dressed en Sultane, 1688. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France. This pair of images are front and back of what seems to be the same dress, which features all the common elements of the “sultane” examples. The essential horizontal braid, loop, and button closures can be seen on the bodice and continue on the overskirt held by the page. The underskirt is boldly striped and at least three layers of sleeve are visible, including a snug undersleeve edged in fur that reaches the wrist, unusual in fashion of that time. Also note the Ottoman-influenced dress of the pages.

138

able men’s “vest” ensemble, discussed above. In this form, the manteau was duly incorporated into more formal dress. It also featured a short sleeve that allowed the undersleeve to show (see fig. 4.16). This form of the manteau with its draped overskirt appeared following the 1669 Ottoman embassy of Müteferrika Süleyman Agˇa to the court of Louis XIV, which has been recorded as inspiring a mode à la turque.94 There is no identifiable image of what form the mode à la turque took at this date, but the new manteau form is a probable element. The arrangement of the coat-like manteau corresponds to the common arrangement of Ottoman coats, which were often lifted and tucked to the back to reveal the underlayers. Also the sudden appearance of stripes as a common feature of fashionable dress in the 1670s and after may have been intended as an exotic feature of dress. Stripes had not been part of fashionable dress, apart from a brief appearance in Tudor dress in the sixteenth century.95 Stripes were a notable feature of Ottoman dress, however. The earliest images of styles specifically identified as à la turque appeared in French fashion plates of the late 1680s and early 1690s. I have identified seven of these, including five different styles generally described as sultane, many available in the online collections of the Bibliothèque nationale de France (see fig. 4.17a, b, c, and d). In his Ladies Dictionary published in 1694, John Dunton described a sultane as “one of those new fashioned gowns trimmed with Buttons and Loops.”96 However, examina-

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Top left, Figure 4.17c. Nicolas Bonnart, Dame de qualité vestue à la sultane, 1675. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France. In this subtler example, two horizontal bands close the bodice at the top and the sleeves are layered. The vertically striped front panel drapes over the broadly striped underskirt to form a third layer. This could correspond to the formal Turkish arrangement of layered coats or it might be equivalent to the apron panel commonly worn by married Turkish women. Top right, Figure 4.17d. Jean de St. Jean, Lady of Quality Dressed à la Sultane, 1688. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France. This dress features stripes and the requisite loop and button closures on the bodice, the edges of the overskirt, and short manteau sleeves. Two other versions of this design are found in a print produced by Gerard Jollain the same year and in another print (see fig. 4.20) showing this identical dress on Queen Mary of England in 1689, an image that was probably made using one of the fashion plates.

tion of these prints suggests that other features are also characteristic of this style. The manteau is always involved, but unlike other manteau ensembles, the sleeve is always arranged so that a second and usually a third undersleeve are exposed. Often present is a variant of the commode headdress fashionable in the French court of the 1680s with some sort of veil draped over the shoulders and back. All but one example included stripes as a motif. Along with the layered skirts and sleeves, striped textiles had made an appearance by the 1670s (see fig. 4.18a and b). Stripes had always been a defining characteristic of Turkish dress and since the Middle Ages had been mainly associated with peripheral groups in society, such as en-

The Seventeenth Century

Bottom left, Figure 4.18a. Jean Dieu de Saint-Jean, Dame se promenant à la campaigne, 1683. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Estampes et photographie. Bottom right, Figure 4.18b. Nicolas Arnoult, Femme de qualité en habit d’esté, d’étoffe siamois, 1687. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Estampes et photographie.

139

Figure 4.19. Nicolas Bonnart, La Grande Sultane, c. 1691–95 (artwork © Victoria and Albert Museum, London, photograph by author). The caption of this print says that she is the favorite of the current sultan, Ahmet IV (an error, since there never was such a person, but Ahmed II reigned from 1691–95). It also says that she was Greek by birth.

tertainers. Striped textiles were generally not considered suitable for fashionable dress until they made a modest appearance in the sixteenth century and a stronger appearance in the seventeenth century. The use of striped textiles seems to correspond with surges of interest in turquerie. These examples can be distinguished as fashionable dress, in contrast with the French understanding of what would actually be worn by a Turkish sultana. A Nicolas Bonnart print of The Grand Sultane in the Victoria and Albert Museum claims to be of the favorite of the current sultan (see fig. 4.19). Her costume differs from the fashionable French à la sultane ensembles seen in figure 4.17, particularly the unfashionably straight, long sleeves of the undergown and the loose fit of the open, trailing overgown, which may have hanging sleeves falling to the back. In addition, there is the elaborate, tall headdress and long veil, which differ from current French 140

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

fashion. Some of these features, particularly the headdress, seem to be taken from the widely reproduced sixteenth-century representations of sultanas by Nicolas de Nicolay and Melchior Lorck, among others. Both were eyewitnesses to the Ottoman Empire but neither would have seen a woman of the harem in person, nor would any male eyewitness of this period have done so. The bodice of the undergown seems to be fitted in a manner normal to European corseted dress but also with a dropped waist belt more typical of the Ottoman silhouette. Since this print was done by an artist known for his fashion plates, it may be that this depiction was intended as a suggestion for fancy dress for either masquerade or theatrical performance. This print was found in a small collection of late seventeenthcentury prints, consisting entirely of dresses with exotic attributions. These prints had been pasted into a small book, probably in the early eighteenth century. They had been hand colored, and parts of the garments were cut away to show actual silk fabric inserted behind the print. The undergown had been filled with a flowered yellow silk and may be a Chinese textile. The overgown had been painted, presumably by the same hobbyist who inserted the fabrics and assembled this scrapbook. Therefore, the colors and patterns seen tell us nothing about the likely materials originally depicted by Bonnart. There was a small fashion for the pastime of creating such “dressed books” among young ladies of the early eighteenth century. Another collection of à la sultane images was found in a bound album The Seventeenth Century

Figure 4.20. Prince William III Bids Farewell to His Wife [Mary Stuart], 1688. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum. The gown in this image is almost identical to a fashion plate in figure 4.18 and was probably used by the artist to create this one. Queen Mary II is portrayed in a different sultane in a fulllength oil portrait by Sir Godfrey Kneller.

141

consisting of exotic fashion images, so it would appear that these exotic images were deemed particularly attractive.97 Queen Mary II of England wore a sultane when she arrived in London to accept Parliament’s invitation to replace her father, James I, in 1689.98 A portrait by Sir Godfrey Kneller and a print have been identified that show her in a sultane (see fig. 4.20). Clearly, if this style was deemed suitable for formal portraits of royalty, it could not be dismissed as simply fancy dress or costume.

Notes

1. Suraiya Faroqhi, “Crisis and Change 1590–1699,” in An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1914, ed. Halil Inalcik and Donald Quataert (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 476–80. 2. Francois Boucher, 20,000 Years of Fashion (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1987), 256–58; Diana de Marly, Fashion for Men: An Illustrated History (London: B. T. Batsford, 1985), 273. 3. Daniel Roche, The Culture of Clothing: Dress and Fashion in the Ancien Regime, trans. J. Birrell (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 28–30, 44, 95–97; Diana de Marly, Louis XIV & Versailles (New York: Holmes & Meier, 1987), 51–54. 4. Joseph Klaits, Printed Propaganda under Louis XIV: Absolute Monarchy and Public Opinion (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), 67. 5. De Marly, Louis XIV & Versailles, 47. 6. Nurhan Atasoy, Walter B. Denny, Louise Mackie, and Hülye Tezcan, Ipek: The Crescent and the Rose: Imperial Ottoman Silks and Velvets, ed. Julian Raby (London: Azimuth, 2001), 182–90. 7. Fatma Müge Göçek, Rise of the Bourgeoisie, Demise of Empire: Ottoman Westernization and Social Change (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 39. 8. Donald Quataert, “Clothing Laws, State and Society in the Ottoman Empire, 1720–1829,” International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 29 (1997): 406–7. 9. Philip Mansel, Constantinople: City of the World’s Desire, 1453–1924 (London: Penguin, 1995), 198. 10. Donald Quataert, The Ottoman Empire, 1700–1922, New Approaches to European History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 33, 37; John Patrick Douglas Balfour Kinross, The Ottoman Centuries (New York: William Morrow, 1977), 335–47. 11. Jason Goodwin, Lords of the Horizons: A History of the Ottoman Empire (New York: Henry Holt, 1998), 228–33, 284–88. 12. Ibid., 229–32; Caroline Finkel, Osman’s Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire 1300–1923 (London: John Murray, 2005), 287; Kinross, The Ottoman Centuries, 335–48. 13. Göçek, Rise of the Bourgeoisie, Demise of Empire, 71. 14. Sonia P. Anderson, An English Consul in Turkey: Paul Rycaut at Smyrna, 1667–1678 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1989), 161. 15. Faroqui, “Crisis and Change 1590–1699,” 503–4. 16. Thomas Coryate, Coryats Crudities: Hastily Gobled Vp in Five Moneths Trauells in France, Sauoy, Italy, Rhetia Co[M]Monly Called the Grisons Country, Heluetia Alias Switzerland, Some Parts of High Germany, and the Netherlands (London: William Stansby, 1611). 17. S. A. Skilliter, William Harborne and the Trade with Turkey 1578–1582 (London: Oxford University Press, 1977), 150; Daniel Goffman, Izmir and the Levantine World (Seattle: University of Washington, 1990), 108; Anderson, An English Consul in Turkey, 290.

142

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

18. De Marly, Fashion for Men, 57–58. 19. Goffman, Izmir and the Levantine World, 94–99. 20. Mansel, Constantinople, 114. 21. Anderson, An English Consul in Turkey, 58–65. 22. Ibid., 65, citing Paul Rycaut, in 1675 SP 97/19 fol.224–5 “State of the English Navigation in the Levant.” 23. Alfred P. Wadsworth and Julia de L. Mann, The Cotton Trade and Industrial Lancashire, 1600–1780 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1931); Textiles in America, 1650–1870: A Dictionary Based on Original Documents, Prints and Paintings, Florence M. Montgomery (New York: W. W. Norton, 1984). 24. Halil Inalcik and Donald Quataert, An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1914 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 334. 25. Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, The Six Voyages of Jean-Baptiste Tavernier . . . Through Turkey into Persia, and the East Indies, Finished in the Year 1670 (London, 1678, chap. XII), 230. 26. Goffman, Izmir and the Levantine World, 140–43. 27. Anderson, An English Consul in Turkey, 160–61. 28. Charlotte Jirousek, “The End of the Silk Road: Implications of the Decline of Turkish Sericulture,” Textile History 29, no. 2 (1998): 201–25. 29. Louis Deshayes, Voiage de Levant Fait par le Commandement du Roy en l’Ane 1621 par le Sr D. C. (Paris: A. Taupinart, 1632), 179. 30. Goffman, Izmir and the Levantine World, 83–84, 145. 31. Faroqhi, “Crisis and Change 1590–1699,” 438–40. 32. Deborah Howard, Venice and the East: The Impact of the Islamic World on Venetian Architecture 1100–1500 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000); Alta Macadam, Venice, Blue Guide (London: A. & C. Black, 1998). 33. Anderson, An English Consul in Turkey, 163–64; Florence M. Montgomery, Textiles in America, 1650–1870: A Dictionary Based on Original Documents, Prints and Paintings, Commercial Records, American Merchant Papers, Shopkeepers’ Advertisements, and Pattern Books with Original Swatches of Cloth (New York: W. W. Norton, 1984), 188–89 (regarding camlet), 250 (regarding grogram), 297–98 (regarding mohair). Although Montgomery is describing textiles from at least a century later, her definitions on the whole correspond to the information from the seventeenth-century trade in Turkey. 34. Atasoy et al., Ipek, 182–90. 35. Bernard Lewis, The Muslim Discovery of Europe (New York: W. W. Norton, 1982), 81. 36. Bashir El-Beshti, “Signifying Text and Displaced Contexts: Orientalism and the Ideological Foundations of the Early Modern State,” in Signs of the Early Modern 2–17th Century and Beyond (Charlottesville, VA: Rookwood Press, 1997), 80–93. 37. Maxime Rodinson, Europe and the Mystique of Islam, trans. Roger Vernius (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1991), 42–45. 38. Among the most important for this period are Thomas Coryate, Coryats Crudities (London: William Stansby, 1611); Fynes Moryson, An Itinerary Vvritten by Fynes Moryson Gent. First in the Latine Tongue, and Then Translated by Him into English: Containing His Ten Yeeres Travell Throvgh the Tvvelve Domjnions of Germany, Bohmerland, Sweitzerland, Netherland, Denmarke, Poland, Italy, Turky, France, England, Scotland, and Ireland (London: J. Beale, 1617); Samuel Purchas, Purchas His Pilgrimes (London: William Stansby for Henrie Fetherstone, 1625); Henry Blount, A Voyage into the Levant (1636); Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, The Six Voyages of Jean Baptiste Tavernier . . . Through Turkey into Persia, and the East Indies, Finished in the Year 1670 (London, 1678); Paul Rycaut, The Memoirs of Paul Rycaut, Esq: Containing the History of the Turks, from the Year 1660 to the Year 1678 (London: John Starkey, 1679).

The Seventeenth Century

143

39. Metin And, Turkiye’de Italyan Sahnesi; Italyan Sahnesinde Turkiye (Istanbul: Metis Yayinlari, 1989), 141–42, citing Angelo Solerti, Musica, ballo, e drammatica alla corte Medicea dal 1600 al 1637 (Firenze, 1905), 93–95. 40. Ibid., 147–71; Clarence Dana Rouillard, The Turk in French History, Thought and Literature, Études de Littérature Étrangère et Comparée (Paris: Boivin et Cie, 1941), 466–78. 41. John MacKenzie, Orientalism: History, Theory and the Arts (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995), 143. 42. John Evelyn, Diary, ed. E. S. Beer, vol. 3 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955), 464. 43. Samuel Pepys, Diary, ed. Robert Latham and William Matthews, vol. 7 (London: G. Bell, 1972), vol. 6 (April 3, 1665), 73; vol. 7, 329. On October 18, 1666, the occasion when Evelyn first saw the king in his new vest, a friend offered to take Pepys to see the play at court this night, but he refused, probably because he had already seen the play. Pepys had found it dull and poorly written on that earlier occasion; however, on the several subsequent occasions, after this date of the king’s second attendance at this play in his new suit, he pronounced it an excellent play, vol. 8 (January 6, 1667), 5; (September 4, 1667), 421. 44. Julia Prest, “Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme,” in The Literary Encyclopedia (London: Literary Dictionary, 2004). 45. Molière, “Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme,” in The Plays of Molière in English and French (Edinburgh: John Grant, 1926), 197–209. 46. Rouillard, The Turk in French History, Thought and Literature, 507–13. 47. Rodinson, Europe and the Mystique of Islam, 39. 48. And, Turkiye’de Italyan Sahnesi, 147–49. 49. Ibid., 141–43. 50. Pepys, Diary, vol. 2, (July 2, 1661), 130–31; (November 15, 1661), 214; vol. 3, (July 2, 1662), 86; (December 27, 1662), 295. 51. Kristin Lohse Belkin, ed., The Costume Book, ed. Ludwig Burchard, 26 volumes, vol. 24, Corpus Rubianum (London: Harvey Miller-Heyden, 1978). 52. R. A. Ingrams, “Rubens and Persia,” The Burlington Magazine 116, no. 853 (April 1974): 190–97. 53. Earl A. Thompson and Jonathan Treussard, “The Tulipmania: Fact or Artifact?” Public Choice 130, no. 1 (January 2007): 99–114; Douglas French, “The Dutch Monetary Environment During Tulipmania,” The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 9, no. 1 (2006). There is a great deal of debate as to how significant an economic event the tulip mania phenomenon actually was, although there is no question that enormous sums of money were spent. In any case, it is undeniably part of the mythology of Orientalism. 54. Evelyn, Diary, vol. 3 (1645), 432, 436, 449. 55. Ibid., 430. 56. Coryate, Coryats Crudities, 171–72. 57. Evelyn, Diary, vol. 4, (December 17, 1684), 398–99. 58. Ibid., vol. 4, (January 11, 1682), 431. 59. Henry Blount, A Voyage into the Levant, vol. 850, The English Experience (Amsterdam: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum, 1977), 19, 26. See also William Lithgow, Lithgow’s Nineteen Years Travels through the Most Eminent Places in the Habitable World (London: John Wright and Thomas Passinger, 1682). 60. Tavernier, The Six Voyages of Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, 47. 61. Anderson, An English Consul in Turkey, 6. 62. Ibid., 7. 63. Gerald M. MacLean, The Rise of Oriental Travel: English Visitors to the Ottoman Empire, 1580–1720 (Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), 222–25. 64. Anderson, An English Consul in Turkey, 6–7.

144

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

65. Sarah Searight, The British in the Middle East (New York: Atheneum, 1970), 40. 66. De Marly, Louis XIV & Versailles, 89. 67. Pepys, Diary, vol. 2 (July 1, 1661), 130; vol. 7 (March 30, 1666), 85. 68. Coryate, Coryats Crudities, 297. 69. Searight, The British in the Middle East. 70. Pepys, Diary, vol. 2 (July 1, 1661), 130; vol. 7 (March 30, 1666), 85. 71. Millia Davenport, The Book of Costume (New York: Crown, 1965), 533. 72. Pepys, Diary, 373. 73. Evelyn, Diary, vol. 3 (June 22, 1664), 373–74. 74. Japonism in Fashion (Kyoto: Fukushoku Bunka Kenkyu Zaidan, 1996). The suggestion has been made in a short English language essay by Japanese costume historian Jun I. Kanai that traders of the Dutch East India Company who had previously been active in Japan set up a business making kimonos in India using Indian materials, with the implication that the banyan was actually a Japanese product. It is difficult to imagine, however, because coats were already widely worn and made in India, particularly among Indian Muslims, that the style or materials would have been anything other than Indian in such a business. It is also difficult to believe that this small group of traders would have been a very large part of the business of exporting dressing gowns to France, England, and all the rest of Europe that would follow. 75. Mark J. Hudson, Ruins of Identity: Ethnogenesis in the Japanese Islands (Manoa: University Hawai’i Press, 1999), 197. 76. Douglas A. Russell, Costume History and Style (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1983), 243. 77. Davenport, The Book of Costume, 528–29. 78. Evelyn, Diary, vol. 4 (June 26, 1679). 79. Russell, Costume History and Style, 243. 80. Pepys, Diary, vol. 2 (February 3, 1661), 29; (April 21, 1661), 81. 81. De Marley, Fashion for Men, 55–56. 82. Pepys, Diary, vol. 2 (October 8, 1661), 315. 83. Evelyn, Diary, vol. 3 (1645), 436, 449. 84. De Marley, Fashion for Men, 56. 85. Ibid., 56–57. 86. Evelyn, Diary, vol. 3 (1645), 464. 87. Pepys, Diary, vol. 6 (April 3, 1665), 73. 88. Ibid., vol. 7 (October 8, October 13, October 15, 1666), 315, 320, 324. 89. De Marley, Louis XIV & Versailles, 17, 37–42. 90. De Marley, Fashion for Men: An Illustrated History, 51. 91. Russell, Costume History and Style, 263. 92. Francois Chaille, Histoire de la Cravate (Paris: Flammarion, 1994), 23–25. 93. De Marley, Louis XIV & Versailles, 47. 94. E. d’Aubigny, “Un Ambassadeur Turc a Paris Sous La Regence,” Revue d’histoire diplomatique III (1889), 78–91; Hélène Desmet-Gregoire, Le Divan Magique, l’Orient Turc in France au XVIII Siècle (Paris: L’harmattan, 1980), 18–19. 95. Michel Pastoureau, The Devil’s Cloth: A History of Stripes and Striped Fabric, trans. Jody Gladding (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991), 42–45. Also see discussion of stripes in chapter 1 and plate 1.26. 96. N. H., The Ladies Dictionary; Being a General Entertainment for the Fair Sex, Etc. (London: J. Dunton, 1694). This citation may be more readily found in Norah Waugh, The Cut of Women’s Clothes: 1600–1930 (London: Methuen, 1968), 112. 97. Pastoureau, The Devil’s Cloth, 42–45. Also see discussion of stripes in chapter 1 and plate 1.26. 98. De Marley, Louis XIV & Versailles, 93. The Seventeenth Century

145

5

The Eighteenth Century An Expanding World

For Europe, the eighteenth century continued the themes of exploration, colonial expansion, overall commercial and industrial growth, and shifting patterns of wealth and consumption. By the end of the century it would also be a time of revolution. Travel was becoming a popular activity for those who could afford it, and for those who didn’t have such adventures there were ample opportunities to encounter the exotic through reading and entertainments and in the marketplace. In the Ottoman Empire, the eighteenth century was a period of reassessment and turmoil following the defeats of the late seventeenth century and their altered relations with the West. Ottomans began to take an interest in Western technologies, inventions, and consumer goods. This interest would have a marked effect on Ottoman dress, although the essential traditional forms would still be maintained. Ottoman consumption of European goods in this period was mostly in the form of household furnishings, textiles, and occasionally accessories. Clothing was rarely included; the dress aesthetics of the East and West were still too different. Imported goods from India, Persia, and China were as important to Ottoman markets as were European goods. Exposure to Europeans was probably most likely for non-Muslim citizens of the Ottoman Empire and for bureaucratic elites because it was these communities in which business and diplomatic interactions with Westerners most frequently occurred (see fig. 5.1). An increase in the number of Ottoman sumptuary decrees registered official uneasiness with deviations from mandated dress during this period.1 Increased contact with Ottomans continued to affect Western fashions as well, both in materials used and in forms of dress. However, for Europeans, the expanding variety of goods now coming from India and the Far East offered a new set of possibilities for experimentation in fashion and design in general (see fig. 5.2). In addition to turquerie and the beginnings of chinoiserie, India in particular continued to capture the fashionable

146

Figure 5.1. Levni, Procession of the Guilds (detail), 1720 (from the Surname-i Vehbi) Istanbul, Topkapı Palace Museum Directorate. This image depicts part of the lavish entertainments staged for the sűnnet (circumcision festivities) of Sultan Ahmed III’s four sons. Diplomatic representatives of France and Russia with their honor guards and translators were placed in a separate pavilion near the pavilion of the sultan, a place of honor.

The Eighteenth Century

147

Figure 5.2. John Singleton Copley (1738–1815), Mrs. Thomas Gage, 1771, oil on canvas. San Diego, Timken Museum of Art, Putnam Foundation / Bridgeman Images. Mrs. Gage was related to several leading New York families. Her paternal grandmother was an Ottoman Greek; her father was born in Smyrna and partly grew up there. His family moved to the US colonies and made their fortune in international trade. Mrs. Gage is depicted in Turkish dress, which had been a stylish form of fancy dress throughout the century, but in this case might have been chosen because of her ancestry.

imagination. The demand for Indian cottons continued to increase. The calicoes of India were popular in both Europe and in the United States, where British merchants had a captive market for their imports. However, in the last half of the century, cottons were also woven and printed domestically, first in England and later in France. This was increasingly done with cotton grown in the West Indies and the Carolinas, which began to undercut the market for Indian raw material. In fashion a variety of new elements began to merge and blend with older ones.

European Dress

Following the death of Louis XIV in 1715, his great grandson, a five-year-old child, became Louis XV under the regency of the Duke of Orléans. After the rigid styles of the long and autocratic reign of Louis XIV, dress became relatively relaxed in form and color in the youthful court that surrounded the young king. For women, fuller skirts and loose sacque gowns resembling dressing gowns were worn, although under these relaxed gowns women still wore narrow corseted bodices (see fig. 5.3). The manteau of the 148

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

late Baroque gave way to a new form of court dress, the robe à la francaise, which retained the loose, pleated backs of the dressing gowns with a closefitted front filled with lace or bows. As the century continued, more elaborately embellished surfaces reappeared, and paniers supported the skirt at the sides to what in court dress was sometimes an extraordinary width. Hair styles also increased in complexity and size, incorporating hair pieces and wigs, arranged over supporting framework and embellished with elaborate confections of fabric, lace, jewels, and flowers as well as hats. Following the death of Louis XV in 1774 and the accession of Louis XVI and his queen Marie Antoinette, these forms of dress and toilette became even more elaborate and decorated for French court dress (see fig. 5.4). However, for wear outside of court, romanticized peasant attire and other more exotic costumes became popular. In the 1780s hem lengths for some informal dress became shorter than ever before in history. In England simpler decoration and colors were in use, although the forms were similar. Throughout the century, fine Indian cottons with painted and printed designs were in high demand for clothing and household use. By the middle of the century, English and later French print houses begin to compete effectively with the imports. In the 1780s soft dresses made of sheer white muslins were worn extensively in England, and this fashion also was popularized by the French queen. The outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789 had a dramatic effect on fashion. It suddenly became dangerous to wear obviously aristocratic dress in Paris. Skirts remained full but without the supporting hoops and paniers, so that the fullness flowed to the rear. Colors became subdued with solid colors, white, and striped fabrics predominating. Wool, linen, and cotton were preferred to silk for the most part (see fig. 5.5). The Eighteenth Century

Figure 5.3. Jean Antoine Watteau (1684–1721), The Shop Sign of the Art Dealer Gersaint, 1720. oil on canvas. 163 × 308 cm. Inv. GK I 1200/1201. Berlin, Charlottenburg Castle, Stiftung Preussische Schlösser and Gärten Berlin-Brandenburg. (Photograph by Jörg P. Anders bpk Bildagentur/Art Resource, New York.) Fashion developed a more relaxed look after the accession of Louis XV. Soft, full skirts were in vogue for women with correspondingly full justacorps for men and simpler hairstyles for both. The new robe à la francaise may be seen in back view on the left and in front and side views on the right.

149

Figure 5.4. Studio of Antoine-Francois Callet (1741– 1823), Marie Thérèse Louise de Savoie-Carignan, Princesse de Lamballe (1749–92), oil on canvas, 123 × 96 cm. MV3905. Versailles, Chateaux de Versailles et de Trianon. (Photograph by Daniel Arnaudet © RMN-Grand Palais/Art Resource, New York.

At the beginning of the century, the male ensemble reflected the silhouette of women’s dress. After the middle of the century, the full-skirted justacorps was replaced by a narrower coat, which by the 1760s curved back so that it could no longer be buttoned all the way down the front, and the bifurcation of gender in dress became more pronounced. The waistcoat gradually became shorter relative to the coat over the course of the century and also eventually became sleeveless. Knee breeches become longer, reaching to the upper calf in the late 1790s, and by early in the next century would stretch to the length of true trousers.2

Ottoman Dress

In the eighteenth century Ottoman dress began to alter noticeably, particularly for women. The mandated dress of male public officials remained fairly constant. Sultans often changed the form of the turban as a mark of their reign (see fig. 5.6). In the eighteenth century, textile patterns in royal kaftans tended to become smaller in scale. By this period many of the fab150

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure 5.5. Possibly Jean Jacques Hauer (French, 1751– 1829), Portrait of a Military Family, c. 1789–90. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art. This portrait was completed as the French Revolution began. Three of the men wear the new official uniforms. The other clothes of this period have less lace and embellishment and are overall more sober and plain. The skirts lack the paniers and large petticoats of a few years earlier, and though hairstyles are still voluminous, they are arranged with less height.

rics used in imperial garments have been identified as European in origin. Although Italian and French textiles were also used in earlier periods, European textiles were much more prevalent in the eighteenth century.3 A wide range of European textiles was in evidence, including French and Italian silks of various qualities, as well as English and Swiss printed cottons.4 For Ottoman women, the unbuttoned, higher neckline of the seventeenth century became an open, deep décolletage by the 1720s, when a number of wonderful paintings of court women were created by the Ottoman artist Levni. By the end of the century these changes became more pronounced, with a sumptuous elaboration of form, materials, and decorations employed. The increase in images of women by Ottoman artists is noteworthy in itself. The overall effect is decidedly more daring and elaborate than in previous periods (see fig. 5.7). The sumptuous variety of materials used and the small delicate patterns seen in the textiles suggest availability of a wider variety of goods from many sources beyond conventional The Eighteenth Century

151

Figure 5.6. Levni, The Sultan Strews Gold (from the Surname-i Vehbi), 1720. Istanbul, Topkapı Palace Museum Directorate. This portrait of Sultan Ahmed III was done by the best-known artist of the period. The sultan’s dress has the same basic forms as that of his predecessors, but the imperial turban shape has changed since the previous century.

152

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure 5.7. Jean-Baptiste Vanmour, A Turkish Lady of the Court, c. 1720. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum. Turkish women’s court dress retained many of the same elements in this period but the cut was distinctly different. The chemise is transparent over a deep décolletage, created by the low cut of the long blue brocade entari, which is open below the waist to expose the underlayers and so tight over the torso that gaps appear between the buttons. The lower sleeves are split to the elbow to expose the chemise sleeves and forearm. Her fur-lined kaftan is draped over her shoulders, a common style for both men and women.

Turkish textile production. Nonetheless, all of the structural components of the ensemble were garments that had been in use for centuries, even though fit, materials, and arrangement of accessories had changed.

In England the Tudor dynasty ended with the reign of Queen Anne in 1714, who was succeeded by George I of the German house of Hanover. Hanoverian kings (who eventually adopted the family name of Windsor) ruled throughout the century. The English were preoccupied with their colonies in North America and their eventual loss of them. Meanwhile the East India Company was expanding English hegemony in India and elsewhere, generating enormous profits for investors and contributing to the emergence of a new leisure class in England.

The Eighteenth Century

Historical Context: Enlightenment and Revolution

153

The Austrians and Prussians struggled for authority in central Europe. The War of the Austrian Secession (1740–48) resulted in the loss of Austrian territory and involved ten countries. The subsequent Seven Years’ War (1756–63) might be termed the first truly global conflict in that it was fought not only in Europe between the alliances, but it was also fought in India, the Caribbean, and the North American colonies by the French and the English.5 The Ottoman Empire established alliances with Poland and Sweden in an attempt to counter the growing power of Russia and the ongoing confrontation with Austria. In the first half of the century, various confrontations resulted in the reoccupation or maintenance of territory that had been contested or captured by the European powers. In spite of this, it had become increasingly apparent that Europe was developing on all fronts— military, technological, and economic—as the Ottoman Empire fell behind. The Ottomans attempted to come to grips with these problems. During 1720–21, the sultan sent a full ambassador to France. This was the first time such a high-level diplomatic mission had ever been sent to a non-Muslim court.6 The sultan had typically used merchants as envoys to carry diplomatic correspondence, with a few exceptions, such as the mission sent to Paris in 1669. However, it had been noted by the Ottoman government that European powers maintained regular embassies everywhere as a means of observing the courts of their neighbors and adversaries. This practice had never seemed useful to Ottoman strategists before, but in view of changing circumstances, it now seemed like a good idea.7 The first embassy in 1720–21 was led by Yirmisekiz Çelebi Mehmed Efendi. In 1741 a second embassy was sent, led by Yirmisekizzade Çelebi Mehmed Said Efendi, who was the son of the previous ambassador and had made the journey twenty years earlier, when he mastered French and adapted quite well to French society. In each case the ambassadors stayed for six months, accompanied by a sizable retinue, and were a sensation at court, in the salons of Paris, and everywhere they went during their journey to the capital. Upon their return, these ambassadors wrote reports on their experience and made recommendations for reforms that might improve Ottoman governance. During the eighteenth century, new Ottoman schools on the French model began to train young men destined for careers in the military and bureaucracy. Exposure to Western ideas was intended to improve the army and the government, but it would have unintended consequences as it introduced young leaders to the revolutionary ideas of the Enlightenment. France played an important role in the negotiations of 1739 that reestablished Ottoman rule in parts of the Balkans. However, after a thirty-year interval of peace, three wars against Russia lost the Ottomans the Crimea and the northern coast of the Black Sea, ending their monopoly over this body of water. These defeats had other long-term effects as they encouraged both the Greeks and the Serbians to think of their own national identities in a new light and with new hope. The warm-water foothold on the Black 154

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Sea achieved by Russia also raised hopes for achieving full access to the Mediterranean through the Dardanelles.8 A final blow was the invasion and conquest of Egypt by Napoleon in 1798, a disaster that would only be reversed by English action (see fig. 5.8). These events confirmed the failure of Ottoman traditionalist policies and demonstrated the need for reform. As the last sultan of the century, Selim III (1789–1807) attempted to initiate major reforms but was unable to overcome the resistance of established elites and lost his throne and his life. The reforms would come in the nineteenth century at the hands of his successor, perhaps too late. Ottoman inability to act without the collaboration of European allies became obvious to all by the end of the century. At the same time, the European powers preferred to maintain the weakened Ottoman Empire rather than see their rivals take advantage of it to gain territory and power. Thus, the Ottomans did not lack for diplomatic or military support.9 Ottoman domestic affairs suffered from a variety of ills in this period as difficulties with administrative control, economic policy, and taxation systems compounded. Popular uprisings, feuds, and general lawlessness occurred in every part of the empire. At all levels, corruption grew as the economy worsened. By the 1750s, the Ottoman Empire was on the brink of financial disaster.10 The Eighteenth Century

Figure 5.8. Francis B. Spilsbury, The Grand Vizier’s Tent, in “Picturesque Scenery in the Holy Land and Syria Delineated during the Campaigns of 1799 & 1800,” stipple engraving, c. 1800 (artwork © Victoria and Albert Museum, London). A diplomatic meeting between the British and Ottoman military forces at Acre in Palestine. Compare with a later meeting in figure 6.6.

155

Figure 5.9. Charles-Nicolas Cochin, Decoration du Bal Masqué—Donné par le Roy, 1746, detail. In this scene of a costume ball, there is a group of Turkish masks with oversized heads and turbans. In their midst is a couple in more authentic Turkish dress. Fancy dress was a popular affectation throughout the century.

Yet in spite of (and probably because of) these difficulties, this was a period in which imperial opulence and display increased. Sultans not well equipped to contend with fiscal and military reform and disinterested in military campaigning created for themselves the luxurious but illusory environment of power. The century opened with the reign of Sultan Ahmed III (1703–30), a period that came to be known as the “tulip era.” It was a period in which those who could afford to do so reveled in the increasing availability of exotic luxuries. These goods in themselves acquired significance as markers of status as a new consumer society was emerging.11 The elegance and self-indulgence of this era was in many ways comparable to the fantasy world created by Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette in the last years before the French Revolution. In both societies court life was an idyllic refuge from national troubles that the rulers were poorly equipped to face (see fig. 5.9).

Trade

Although Europeans were intent on developing trade colonies in the Americas and South and East Asia, trade with the Levant did not cease. However, the Levant trade was changing. Certain goods such as Persian silk and Indian cotton had previously reached the West via caravan to Alexandria, Aleppo, or Smyrna, but increasingly these Eastern goods were shipped by sea from their point of origin. As the century progressed, the growing direct trade with China and India increasingly replaced the overland routes. However, Ottoman markets were also an important destination for European manufactured goods, including textiles. Demand increased in the Levant for a wide range of consumer goods from European manufacturers. Europeans introduced their products through gifts to the sultan and other dignitaries in the towns where they did business as well as through display in their own households and dress. As the foreign community grew, so did exposure to European goods 156

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure 5.10a and b. Woman’s entari with detail, 18th century. Istanbul, Topkapı Palace Museum Directorate. The fabric appears to be a silk damask and has been identified as a French textile based on the woven design. Documentary evidence suggests that by this date, French and Italian luxury silks were being exported to the Ottoman Empire in growing quantities. However, Muslim elites still maintained the essential forms of their dress.

Italian silks had been purchased by the Ottoman court since the fifteenth century, and by the sixteenth century Italian weavers were already producing silks specifically for export to Constantinople.12 Italian silks would continue to compete well in the eighteenth century.13 However, beginning in the 1730s, the French began to find a modest market for their silks in Constantinople and Smyrna (see fig. 5.10a and b). However, French The Eighteenth Century

157

Figure 5.11. Bedcover, 18th century. Indian, Gujarat for the British market. Cotton, embroidered with silk. Rogers Fund, 1968. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art. This textile is similar to many examples of Eastern textiles in the imperial collections of the Topkapı Palace Museum. European weavers could not yet compete with the fine technical and aesthetic quality of Indian and Persian textiles, which were also lower in price. Ottoman textile imports continued to be from the East, not the West.

silk never comprised more than 20 percent of Ottoman silk fabric imports. Persian and Indian luxury textiles were also very popular in the Ottoman market, and Europeans could not compete with them in quality or price.14 Meanwhile, the British East India Company established direct rule in India in the 1770s and at about the same time established a regular trading presence at Canton, which was the only port through which foreigners were allowed trade access to China. Therefore, by the late eighteenth century, Chinese and Indian goods were increasingly important sources of exotica for British consumers (see fig. 5.11).15 Following the American Revolution, American merchant vessels became very active in the China trade as well. European merchants also continued to seek silk cocoons and thread to support their own industries. Since sericulture in Europe was never able to meet the needs of European weavers, importation of silk remained an important aspect of the Levant trade and the China trade.16 As Persian silk was no longer being sent regularly to the Mediterranean ports, Aleppo 158

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

factors began to promote locally produced silk.17 However, increasingly silk was also being acquired directly from China. The trade was formalized by the Chinese government in 1699 at Canton, after which the trade rapidly expanded. Although silk cloth and silk thread were always of interest, tea drove the China trade during most of the eighteenth century.18 The fine woolen cloth of Northern Europe was still in demand in Ottoman markets, in spite of Ottoman efforts to improve their own production to compete with this essential commodity. Although the English and Dutch dominated the woolen cloth trade with the Ottomans in the seventeenth century, by 1700 the French had begun to reestablish themselves. As the century progressed, French cloth dominated the markets in Egypt, Syria, North Africa, the Balkans, and Asia Minor.19 The English and Dutch continued to conduct a vigorous trade with the Levant, particularly through Smyrna. Their first-quality woolens were superior to most of the French cloth, but the French became the most important trading partner of the Ottomans on the basis of their cheaper qualities of cloth, referred to as Londrins (see fig. 5.12).20 Another interesting product France produced quite successfully for the Ottoman market was the soft, red caps known as kavuk, serpuş, or fes. These caps were used by Muslims as a base around which to wind their turbans but were worn by non-Muslims as well. These caps originated in Tunisia, and the best-quality fes continued to be made there.21 French production was mainly sold in Constantinople and its environs and competed with a local industry in which Tunisian immigrant craftsmen played an important role. These caps were the ancestors of the nineteenth-century fez, which took a more rigid, cylindrical form. The French established factories at Marseilles and Bearn simply to manufacture these hats for export to the Levant, but the French production also seems to have influenced domestic fashion around the end of the century and might also have been a precursor of the classic French beret adopted by southern French peasants in the early nineteenth century. By 1789 the Ottomans were the third most important trading partner for the French, behind Spain and America. French trade accounted for about half of all European trade with the Ottoman Empire now that English and Dutch colonial commerce had pulled these competitors away from the Levant trade.22 The European pattern of exporting finished goods and importing Ottoman raw materials established in the seventeenth century became even more pronounced in the eighteenth century. Nonetheless, some Ottoman cloth did make its way to Europe, and there was a demand for Ottoman The Eighteenth Century

Facing, Figure 5.12. JeanBaptiste Vanmour, Marchand Franc, 1707–08 (from Recueils de Cent Estampes representant differentes Nationes du Levant). The Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs: Art & Architecture Collection, New York Public Library Digital Collections. Accessed January 24, 2017. http://digital collections.nypl.org/items /510d47d9-6a05-a3d9-e040 -e00a18064a99. This gentleman is probably French, but all European merchants were called “Franks” (ferengi) by the Ottomans, a term dating back to the Crusades. His dress is an interesting mixture of West and East. He wears the Ottoman şalvar, an entari tucked up into his belt, and a more ambiguous cloak. In a society that placed great emphasis on headgear as a status marker, he retains his full bottom wig and tricorne hat as a sign of his European origins.

159

goods, along with exotica from India and further east. The best evidence of this demand is the repeated establishment of regulations banning textile imports seen to be a challenge to the domestic production in France, England, and elsewhere. Indian textiles were by far the most important Eastern textile imports in this period. Nonetheless, some Ottoman and Persian goods also found their way to the cloth merchants in London, Paris, and elsewhere. In fact, the reduction of the overland caravan trade from India to Aleppo contributed to the development of a local cotton printing industry around Aleppo and in the town of Tokat, an important town on the northern caravan routes. This production was intended for the export trade as well as the domestic market, raising interesting questions as to whether some of the eighteenth-century printed cottons now found in Western collections and presumed to be Indian might have been produced in these Ottoman centers that served the European Levant trade.23 Cotton became the premier export of the Levant after 1750, although it had to compete with the growing cotton production from the Caribbean as well as India.24 Nonetheless, cotton cloth from Ottoman sources was sought to support the growing print industry in England and later in France.25 Meanwhile, European policies of importing raw materials and exporting finished goods continued to wreak havoc on Ottoman industries, particularly later in the century. Ottoman administrations were unable to recognize or cope with this challenge. The mercantilist philosophy of Europe was not shared by the Ottomans, who saw trade as subsidiary to their responsibilities to the state and the community of their subjects. They saw customs charged on imports as an excellent and easy source of income and did not understand the reliance on imports as a threat to local production. There was, in short, an inability to consider the long-term effects of their economic policies.26

Exchanges of Cultural Ideas: Literature, Humanities, and the Arts

As interactions shifted increasingly from the battlefield to the reception hall and the marketplace, the eighteenth century saw a shift in Europe from the cautious attempts at objectivity seen in seventeenth-century scholarship toward genuine interest and occasionally outright admiration of the Ottomans (see fig. 5.13). The increasing openness of the Turks to Western contacts emboldened those whose fascination need no longer be tempered by fear. After all, it was the Arabic scholars of the Near East that had preserved the wisdom of the classical Greeks and Romans upon which the Western Renaissance and Enlightenment were founded. Furthermore, many writers of the Enlightenment admired the relative tolerance of the Ottoman State toward its diverse religious minorities. Others were impressed by the way in which Islam seemed to encompass the moral, physical, and spiritual needs of the believer in a manner that was perceived as corresponding to the Deist views of the Enlightenment.27 Leading thinkers of the Enlightenment, including Leibniz, Voltaire, and Gibbon, wrote favorably about the teachings of Muhammad and the ideals of Muslim civi-

160

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure 5.13. Jean-Baptiste Vanmour, Fille Turque Prenant le Caffe sur le Sopha, 1714 (from Recueils de Cent Estampes representant differentes Nationes du Levant). The Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs: Art & Architecture Collection, New York Public Library Digital Collections. Accessed January 24, 2017. http://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items /510d47d9-69f8-a3d9-e040 -e00a18064a99. This image of a Turkish lady enjoying coffee was widely copied in Europe and Turkey. Coffee drinking and smoking were of great interest to the eighteenth-century European fashion world. These new vices were very much associated with stereotypes of Eastern self-indulgence and luxury.

lization. Montesquieu, in his Persian Letters (1721), makes use of the device of a fictitious Muslim commentator to offer critical accounts of European manners.28 His book was the best known of a genre of such fictitious commentaries by Oriental observers.29 In literary works such as William Beckford’s Vathek (1786), a romantic fantasy of the East was presented as a work of the imagination.30 Numerous translations of Islamic literature and poetry were also published. Travel accounts continued to be popular, with a proliferation of both new and republished older accounts. The most notable of the new accounts was that by Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, the first woman to write about her travels to the East and provide an eyewitness account of the daily life, dress, and manners of Muslim women (see fig. 5.14). Hers was a very different perspective than the erotic fantasies of the harem generated by male

The Eighteenth Century

161

Figure 5.14. Jean-Baptiste Vanmour, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu with her son, Edward Wortley Montagu, and attendants, 1716–18 (artwork © National Portrait Gallery, London). This is one of several portraits of Lady Mary in Turkish costume, but the only one done during her stay in Constantinople. Vanmour was the most prominent European artist in the city when she commissioned this portrait. It has been suggested that her pose and costume may not be accurately Turkish, but there is no basis for this judgment. Vanmour’s depictions of Ottomans are generally accepted as quite accurate. Compare with figure 5.7.

162

writers.31 Lady Montagu traveled to Constantinople with her diplomat husband in 1716–18 and described her adventures in letters to her friends. These letters were widely circulated in society during her lifetime and formally published after her death in 1762. They were widely read and something of a sensation, as almost no women of her station traveled to such exotic places or publicly distributed their writings. Lady Montagu’s account contributed greatly to the turquerie of the later eighteenth century. Among other important documentaries and travel accounts of the eighteenth century was that of Mouradgea d’Ohsson.32 He was of Levantine French and Armenian descent, employed for many years as dragoman (translator and guide) for the Swedish Embassy, and he published an illustrated memoir. Among many others, Jean-Baptiste Tavernier and Constantin-Francois Volney also wrote important accounts of their experiences and observations.33 Meanwhile, Orientalism, as a formal discipline under that term, emerged for the first time when in 1784 a scholarly society was founded in India for the study of Muslim and Hindu languages and literature; a second one was founded by the East India Company in 1800.34 In this century the idea of the Orient expanded to include much of the rest of Asia, although in the nineteenth century this expansion became fully developed as new colonial empires emerged.

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Images of exotic destinations continued to be provided as documentation of travel and diplomatic or historical events. Europeans who had traveled in the East continued to have their portraits done in their Oriental clothing. The painter Jean-Baptiste Vanmour (1671–1737) went to Istanbul with French Ambassador De Ferriol in 1699. He was commissioned to paint a series of a hundred scenes of Ottoman life, which were then published as prints. Vanmour remained in Constantinople for the rest of his life, painting the city and people he had come to know and love. He painted Lady Montagu in her Turkish dress (see fig. 5.14) and portraits of other European visitors to the city. He recorded several imperial receptions of foreign ambassadors and private scenes of Ottoman life (see figs. 5.15 and 5.16a and b) that had never before seen by Westerners.35 The use of Muslim dress to depict figures in biblical scenes was no longer considered appropriate, as relations with the Turks and Arabs became more familiar and knowledge of classical forms became more accurate. Travel images included more naturalistic landscapes, street scenes, and scenes of daily life that contextualized the subjects in a way not previously seen, though with a tendency to idealize them. Music and performing arts continued to adopt Muslim themes, instruments, and musical phrasing. In the eighteenth century, virtually every important composer produced works with Turkish themes. The trills, embellishments, frequent changes of key, and use of minor keys characteristic of Baroque music were all inspired by Ottoman and Asian music and became a permanent aspect of the Western musical vocabulary thereafter.36

The Eighteenth Century

Figure 5.15. Jean Baptiste Vanmour, Lying-in Room of a Distinguished Turkish Woman, c. 1720–37. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum. Although the artist would not have attended this private scene, he learned enough of Turkish customs to infer it. New mothers were expected to stay at home and do no work for the first forty days after childbirth. During this time, female relatives and neighbors would call on her and be offered coffee, sweets, and cologne.

163

)

Figure 5.16a. Jean-Baptiste Vanmour, La sultane asseki, ou sultane reine, 1714 (from Recueils de Cent Estampes representant differentes Nationes du Levant). The Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs: Art & Architecture Collection, New York Public Library Digital Collections. Accessed January 25, 2017. http://digital collections.nypl.org/items/510d47d9-69cb-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99. The Hās. ekī Sult. ān was a high-status imperial consort. The image and pose were used by Vanmour in several of his paintings (including fig. 5.7) and were copied by other artists. Compare it with the portrait of Lady Montagu in figure 5.14. Figure 5.16b. Jean-Baptiste Vanmour, Femme Turque qui Fume sur la Sopha, 1714 (from Recueils de Cent Estampes representant differentes Nationes du Levant). The Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs: Art & Architecture Collection, New York Public Library Digital Collections. Accessed December 12, 2017. http://digital collections.nypl.org/items/510d47d9-69f5-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99. This is another image widely copied or referred to by other artists, for example, as in the Van Loo portrait of Madame de Pompadour in figure 5.19. Pipe smoking by a lady was perceived by Europeans as evidence of dissipation and self-indulgence in harem life.

Examples include Haydn’s Military Symphony and Mozart’s Turkish Rondos. In addition to well-known works like The Abduction from the Seraglio by Mozart, there were many operas composed on Ottoman themes. Grétry was known for his Orientalist themes, with his Caravane du Caire receiving at least five hundred performances in Paris between 1783 and 1829. Numerous operas were written about a number of different Ottoman sultans—more than ten about Suleyman the Magnificent alone, including a very popular production by Favart (see fig. 5.17a and b). 164

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

In 1748 in Rome, Jean Francoise de Troy organized a spectacle on the theme of the annual caravan to Mecca from Constantinople. The spectacle was described as representing all the varieties of Muslim Ottoman subjects, including the various ranks of military and court officials—a grand excuse for opulent spectacle. A similar carnival fete was organized in Naples in 1778, commemorated by the artist R. Morghen.37 The popular story of the defeat of Bayezid by Tamerlane first staged by Marlowe in 1588, and by Racine in 1672, was staged by thirty-three different authors and composers by the end of the eighteenth century, including Handel in 1724.38 Turkish interludes were often inserted into works that had nothing to do with Ottoman stories. Although this turquerie in the theater was most prevalent in France, many examples exist from English and Italian playwrights and composers. On the whole, the treatment of these subjects tended to stress the romantic and exotic aspect of the story and settings and seemed generally sympathetic and less preoccupied with communicating the villainy of the Oriental despot than in earlier periods. There were three productions (two operas and a ballet) entitled the Generous Sultan—not a title one would have found in the previous century. Two operas were set in an obviously friendly and festive setting, Gambussi’s Il Turco al Caffe di Parigi (A Turk in a Paris Café) in 1771, and Canavasso’s Il Beraim, o sia Il Carnavale turco (The Bayram–A Turkish Carnival) in 1785. There is even a record of a puppet theater play and surviving puppets in Turkish costume in Venice.39 In some instances, Turkish characters were presented as redeemable figures, even held up as models of noble behavior. India was the inspiration of some literature and performance in England, but the great operatic and theatrical use of the Far East would for the The Eighteenth Century

Left, Figure 5.17a. Justine Favart, rôle de la jeune sultane dans Soliman II, ou Les trois sultanes, 1761. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France. Madame Favart is shown in authentic Turkish costume ordered from Constantinople for her role as Roxelane in a production by her husband, the director of the Opéra-Comique in Paris. It was popular and toured many capitals of Europe. Right, Figure 5.17b. Mr. Le Kain, Orosmane dans Zaïre, 1773 (artwork © Victoria and Albert Museum, London). Henri Louis Le Kain, dressed for his role in Voltaire’s romantic tragedy Zaïre. Le Kain was known for his flamboyant style. Although this costume is an exaggeration of Ottoman dress, it has all the components appropriate to an Ottoman sultan.

165

most part be left to the next century, when those distant places became more familiar and accessible. The New World had also begun to generate a new exotic literature, and representations of Native Americans were beginning to compete for space in the literary and artistic imagination. However, Turkish themes still seemed to predominate whenever an exotic theme was sought. Architecture incorporated some Islamic elements, though mostly as decorative detail. There was a fashion for the creation of follies in the form of garden pavilions, “temples,” and the like in classical, Muslim, and Chinese forms.

Borrowings in Dress

166

As relations with the Ottomans improved, increasing numbers of Europeans traveled to the Near East for business and diplomacy or simply as tourists. The Turks were also visiting the West in greater numbers, as they sought to find the secrets of European economic and cultural successes. This new access to one another was reflected in marked changes in dress, the first truly two-way development. The visit to Paris of Ottoman Ambassador Yirmisekiz Çelebi Mehmet Efendi in 1720–21 and of his son in 1741 sparked resurgences of turquerie that affected literature, the arts, and fashion.40 Swiss artist Jean-Étienne Liotard visited Constantinople with Lord Duncannon from 1738–42. He apparently brought a collection of Ottoman clothing home with him—similar and identical garments and textiles appear in many of his Turkish costume paintings of Europeans. His paintings present Ottoman dress in a relatively serious manner with close attention to details and setting (see fig. 5.18). Portraits in this mode sometimes depicted trophies of travel experiences but are more often an affectation. We also know that Turkish dress had been popular with both men and women as masquerade attire for centuries and that it appeared on stage where it could inspire fashion. However, in the eighteenth century the presentation of Turkish dress could be much more authentic, since there were now many more people of fashion who had enjoyed the opportunity of seeing genuine Turkish dress. There seem to have been two primary referents for such attire. First, there is the long-standing romantic and erotic association with the ladies of the harem, long celebrated in fiction and travelogue. The relaxed, uncorseted body and the opulent variety of fabrics suggested a kind of abandon and sensuality that was a welcome contrast to the rigid containment of court dress. For men, the equivalent associations were those of power and manly prowess as they dressed up to portray the master of the harem. Portraits done of women in Turkish dress were generally intended to be part of the furnishings of private spaces, as was the case with van Loo’s portrait panel of Madame de Pompadour in authentic Turkish costume (see fig. 5.19). Marie Antoinette was also painted in Turkish dress for a similarly intimate portrait.

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Paradoxically, the wearing of actual full-blown Turkish dress had also begun to take on a second set of associations, quite different from the obvious eroticism of male harem fantasies. Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, who had accompanied her British ambassador husband to Constantinople in 1716–18, found much in Ottoman life and manners that pleased her sense of aesthetics and notions of sensible arrangements in life. Before her letters were published posthumously, the only descriptions of Ottoman women had been provided by male travelers. As she pointed out, “The Turks are too proud to converse familiarly with merchants etc., who can only pick up some confus’d information . . . they give no better an Account of the ways here than a French refugee lodging in a Garret in Greek street could write of the Court of England.”41 Lady Montagu visited the homes of many Ottoman women including the wife of a grand vizier and the widow of a sultan. On route to the Ottoman court, for three weeks she and her husband were the guests of an educated “Efendi” or gentleman in Belgrade, with whom she daily discussed poetry, literature, religion, and the place of women, through her interpreter.42 She studied Turkish, and if one can believe her letters, became fluent enough to converse directly with her Turkish friends. She explored the markets, streets, mosques, and waterways of Constantinople, sometimes (when accompanied by her friend, the wife of the French ambassador) with a great retinue of European footmen, maids-in-waiting, and Turkish guards, creating quite a spectacle of European pomp and style. At other times, she wandered about in Turkish dress and a veil, with only a

The Eighteenth Century

Figure 5.18. Jean-Étienne Liotard (1702–89), Monsieur Levett and Mademoiselle Helene Glavany in Turkish Costumes, 1740, oil on canvas. RF1995–14. Paris, Louvre. (Photograph by RenéGabriel Ojéda. Photo Credit: © RMN-Grand Palais/Art Resource, New York.)

167

Figure 5.19. Carle van Loo, La sultane (Portrait of Madame de Pompadour), 1755 (artwork © Paris, Les Arts Décoratifs). This was a decoration on a piece of boudoir furniture, intended for private display. It commemorates a costume originally worn by Madame de Pompadour for a court theatrical. Compare it with the Turkish pipe smoker or coffee drinker in figures 5.13 and 5.15. It is one of several costume images commissioned by the subject as an erotic fantasy for the amusement of the king. The relaxed pose of Madame de Pompadour, the soft garments, and uncorseted bodies all contrast with the complex and rigid French court dress. The enslaved black woman was another exotic trapping of wealth and status.

single female companion and a Turkish guard. When her husband was suddenly recalled, she was reluctant to leave. She wrote with admiration of Turkish women and Ottoman domestic life, contrasting the rights of Muslim women with those of Englishwomen: Tis very easy to see they have more Liberty than we have. No Woman of what rank so ever being permitted to go in the streets without 2 muslins, one that covers her face all but her Eyes and another that hides the whole dress of her head . . . their shapes are wholly conceal’d by a thing they call a Ferigee, which no Woman of any sort appears without. . . . You may guess how effectually this disguises them, that there is no distinguishing the great Lady from her Slave, and ’tis impossible for the most jealous Husband to know his Wife when he meets her, and no Man dare either touch or follow a Woman in the street. . . . Neither have they much to apprehend from the resentment of their Husbands, those Ladys that are rich having all their money in their own hands, which they take with ’em upon a divorce with an addition which he is oblig’d to give ’em. Upon the Whole, I look upon the Turkish Women as the only free people in the Empire.43

Since at the time and until well into the nineteenth century Englishwomen and Western women in general lacked any comparable rights over their property or security, Ottoman women would become something of an embodiment of Western female yearnings for emancipation. Thus, the adoption of Turkish dress, particularly the loose trousers, took on new meanings. Such attire could be taken as an intentional sign of admiration for the social and economic rights of Ottoman women, not merely for the 168

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure 5.20. Charles Jervas (c. 1675–1739), Portrait of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu (1689–1762), c. 1718–1720. National Gallery of Ireland Collection. (Photo Credit © National Gallery of Ireland.) This Turkish costume appears to be a mixture of authentic and modified elements. The headdress and pointed slippers appear authentic. There are three layers of coats visible. The two underlayers seem to be cut in the straight, unfitted Ottoman style. The outer layer appears to be cut more like a late Baroque mantua with additional fullness gathering at the waist in the back and a bodice tailored to the body. Only the plain, long sleeves are not those of a mantua. No Turkish tailor at this time could have constructed this garment as depicted. It seems likely that this portrait was done after Lady Montagu returned from Constantinople in 1718. The stiff collar is neither Ottoman nor English and may have been created by a European tailor to finish this whimsical ensemble à la turque, which allowed her to be properly corseted and yet exotic. Compare with figure 5.14 in which she is wearing authentic Turkish dress.

physical convenience of their dress. Upon her return to England, Lady Mary, who moved in progressive intellectual circles, wrote a number of essays that expressed her views on marriage and women’s education, some of which were published anonymously, and all of which were circulated among her friends, like her letters.44 The events of her life clearly attest to her character as a woman of independent mind. She chose a husband other The Eighteenth Century

169

Above left, Figure 5.21a. Ambroise Tardieu (1782–1822), Autre Femme Grecque. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France. Note the elaborate and oversized headdress in this French engraving from a book on costume in the Ottoman province of Greece. It resembles the elaborate and oversized coiffures of the late eighteenth century in France. Above right, Figure 5.21b. Antoine Watteau (1684–1721), Woman in a Striped Dress (artwork © Trustees of the British Museum). The unfitted coat had been around in women’s fashion since the sixteenth century, but in the seventeenth century it had been relegated to private wear. In the early eighteenth century, it reappears in fashion for a time. The loose gown, worn over a corseted bodice, gave an exotic appearance from the back that strongly resembles the effect of the loose coats worn in public by Ottoman women. Left, Figure 5.21c. Levni, Turkish Woman in Outdoor Dress, 1720. Istanbul, Topkapı Palace Museum Directorate.

170

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

than the one her father intended for her. She maintained active literary friendships with many of the great minds of her day and was admired for her wit and literary talent. Her most famous accomplishment was the introduction of smallpox vaccination to London, a practice she learned about in Constantinople and had administered to her son there. This activism was controversial not only as a medical innovation but also as a questionable public activity for a woman of her station.45 She separated eventually from her more conventional husband to live independently in Italy in the last decades of her life. She wore her Turkish costume on occasion, and it has been suggested that she saw it as a statement of her views on women’s rights (see fig. 5.20).46 Her portrait was done several times in Turkish costume—at least twice in Constantinople and also after her return to London.47 Another woman who had her portrait done in Turkish dress was the Duchess of Richmond. She was, together with her husband Charles, a progressive who supported the modern causes of her day. The fact that her portrait was reproduced as a print suggests that her intention was to make a social/intellectual statement, not a private erotic one. Since actual Turkish dress was available to be seen and worn by Europeans, it is no surprise that turquerie incorporated elements of the Turkish aesthetic in fashionable dress. The loose overgowns of the early Rococo that were suggestive of the dressing gowns designated as exotic dress in the seventeenth century were carried into wider use for a time after 1715 (see fig. 5.21a, b, and c). Many elements of Turkish dress had, after all, been in use for some time and had been fully appropriated into the fashion of the day. For example, the robe à la francaise with its flowing back and openfronted, attached bodice and skirt was the dominant form of Rococo court fashion. It seems to be simply an incorporation of the sacques of the early eighteenth century with the fitted manteau of the late seventeenth century that had also been part of the robe à la sultane discussed in the previous chapter. This form had been fully assimilated into the vocabulary of European dress, but it is also apparent that the fashionable world was aware of the roots of these forms, because the terminology of turquerie would continue to be attached to certain variations of the basic ensemble when it suited taste and occasion.

In the 1770s and 1780s turquerie can be more specifically identified, thanks to a collection of fashion plates originally published between 1778 and 1787. The surviving prints were compiled and republished between 1911 and 1914 by Paul Cornu, with his commentary. Cornu, in his introduction to the thirteen-volume series, describes his attempt to find all the surviving examples of the prints originally published in the Galerie des Modes and other periodicals of the period between 1778 and 1787. There is no reason to believe that the collection was edited to reflect a particular aesthetic bias; his stated intention was to publish all surviving examples. Yet of the 325 plates in this collection more than a fifth are identified in some way that The Eighteenth Century

Turquerie and Other Exoticism in Fashion

171

Top left, Figure 5.22a. JeanAntoine Guer, Kizlar Ağası (Master of the Women), 1747 (from Moeurs et Usages des Turcs). Traditional forms of Ottoman dress continued into the eighteenth century. Note the tucked-up coat. Top right, Figure 5.22c. Nicolas Dupin, after Pierre Thomas Le Clerc, “Robe à la Polonaise,” Galerie des Modes, c. 1778. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum. Note the stripes and tucked-up overskirt, and compare the high headdress to figure 5.21. Bottom, Figure 5.22b. “Poland 18th & 19th centuries,” Art and Picture Collection, New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations. The aristocratic Polish woman wears a coat with fur edging and hanging sleeves and a turban with aigrette, both features that Polish dress shared with Ottoman dress. Additional such features are visible on the other figures.

172

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

can be considered turquerie, by far the most substantial exotic attribution to be found in this collection of prints.48 There can be no question that these attributions are a substantial part of fashion in this period. A small selection of sixty-four of these prints from an English language edition of these volumes was chosen for a Dover edition.49 The terminology used to describe these ensembles deserves some interpretation, since finally the sources provide some specific nomenclature for these forms of dress. In some instances, the meanings are vague, but if familiar with Turkish dress, perhaps not too obscure. There is a relationship to the forms of the Baroque sultane of a century before but with a considerable expansion of inventiveness and variation of form. These inventions were both a product of the scope of French fashion in this period and also a result of a far more detailed and specific knowledge of the various forms of Turkish dress that might inspire fashion invention. One common style is the polonaise (see fig. 5.22a, b, and c). Louis XV’s queen was a Polish princess, Marie Leczinska, and Poland had from an early date maintained strong relations with the Ottoman Empire to protect itself from its European neighbors. In the eighteenth century, Polish court dress closely resembled Ottoman court dress, as some Polish folk dress continued to do into the twentieth century.50 Another style is the Circassienne (see fig. 5.23). The Circassians were a mostly Muslim people of the Caucasus who played an important role in the service of the Ottoman sultan, military and otherwise. According to the European literary mythology, the fair-haired Circassian women were the most beautiful and the favorites of the Ottoman harems. Thus, there was a particular cachet to dressing in this style. The robe à la Lévite is characterized as a coat closed with a sash (see fig. 5.24) that may be either fitted or loose. This fashion may have been inspired by Racine’s play Athalie, which was based on the encounter between the followers of Jahweh and the Canaanite worshippers of Baal. Levites were descendants of Levi, one of the tribes of Israel, with special religious duties to Israel. While no example of European Jewish dress that I have been able to find includes a coat and sash of this type, in the Middle Eastern setting in which the Old Testament story took place, there were contemporaneous examples of Jewish dress with coats and sashes. From the fifteenth century onward, there had been a tendency to depict biblical stories in dress that The Eighteenth Century

Figure 5.23. Pierre Gleich (possibly), after Claude Louis Desrais, “Jeune Dame en Circassienne garnie de blonde,” in Galerie des Modes et Costumes Français, 1785, nr. 15, nr. 30, c. 1785. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum. The short sleeves of the overgown expose the undersleeves and their fur trim evokes that of luxurious Ottoman coats. Compare the high-plumed headdress to figure 5.21a.

173

Figure 5.24. Pierre Adrien Le Beau, after Pierre Thomas Le Clerc, “Robe à la Lévite,” in Galerie des Modes et Costumes Français, 1779, v 124. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum. The robe à la Levite is characterized by a loose or fitted coat closed with a sash.

resembled current dress in the Middle East, a convention that could still apply. The term Levantine refers in general to all inhabitants of the Levant, the lands of the eastern Mediterranean, under Ottoman rule in this period. It also refers more specifically to the community of expatriate merchants of European citizenship who had been living for centuries in Constantinople, Smyrna (Izmir), Aleppo, and other ports of the Levant—a fabulously wealthy community, whose descendants live in Turkey to this day (see fig. 5.25). Other gowns in this fashion plate collection are labeled à la turque and à la Musulmane (see fig. 5.26). They are usually shown with a train and a more fitted torso rather than the lifted overskirt of the polonaise or Circassienne. There is also a short oversleeve associated with the outer coat 174

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure 5.25. Nicholas Dupin, “Robe à la Levantine,” in Galerie des Modes et Costumes Français, 1778. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France. “Levantine” may refer to any inhabitant of the eastern Mediterranean or more specifically to the centuries-old community of expatriate European merchants, some of whose descendants still live in Turkey to this day. The ermine lining of this semi-fitted coat is a reference to Ottoman style and to the wealth and luxury of this class.

layer. A coat worn over a sash described as à la turque is a very common feature of the manner in which Turks, both men and women, layered sashes and coats. At the same time that all of this turquerie appeared in the design of fashionable gowns, turban-like confections were common headdresses, along with plumes and jewels similar to the embellishment of imperial Ottoman turbans. We also see the development of enormous coiffures for women that in themselves seem almost like vast turbans. These poufs, turbans, and hats are all identified in the Galerie des Modes as being à la turque (see fig. 5.27). The softer forms can be clearly identified with turbans, particularly those with plumes, reminiscent of the plumed crest worn by sultans. Others, such as the hat in figure 5.26, at first glance seem to bear no resemblance to anything Turkish. However, if one knows Turkish costume, The Eighteenth Century

175

Figure 5.26. “Robe à la Turque,” in Galerie des Modes et Costumes Français, 1780. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum. Gowns described as à la turque and à la Musulmane are usually shown with a short oversleeve associated with the outer coat, a fitted torso, and a train rather than the lifted skirt of the polonaise or Circassienne.

many of the elements of Turkish women’s headdress are to be seen in the decoration of this hat. The white kerchief and the flowers are features of a Turkish women’s headdress, here assembled on a very non-Turkish hat as a decorative confection. It is as though the components arrived in the hands of the milliner as an unassembled bundle. Another Eastern influence is found in the textiles of the late eighteenth century. By the 1780s, stripes had become the pattern of choice. Colorfully patterned, warp-striped textiles had long been a feature of Central Asian nomadic dress, as can be seen in the earliest textiles and garments that have survived from this region.51 Warp-striped textiles reached to the Mediterranean west from the Uighur homeland since at least the arrival of the Turks a thousand years ago. To this day striped silks are as essential to Turkish traditional dress as tartans are to the Scottish. A case has been 176

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure 5.27. “Pouf à la Turque,” in Galerie des Modes et Costumes Français, 1786. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum.

made that from the Middle Ages onward in Europe striped textiles for clothing were perceived as “the Devil’s cloth”—worn not by ordinary citizens but rather designated for those at the fringes of society—performers, prostitutes, and non-Christians.52 Such sumptuary significance had no doubt faded by the Age of Enlightenment, but it is certainly interesting to note that the incorporation of stripes in fashion (as opposed to costume) had been a rarity, and it seems more than a coincidence that this decoration should appear at the same time as all of the Circassiennes, Levantines, and Turques that we also see in this period. The few examples of garments à la chinoise that appear in the Galerie des Modes are difficult to equate with what is known about the forms of eighteenth-century Chinese dress. The cut differs little from a polonaise but the one distinctive element of the fashionable garment (as opposed to the theater costumes) is the use of exceptionally broad, all-over, highly contrasting stripes. This does not seem to be a common feature of Chinese dress or of Chinese textiles. Do these exceptionally broad stripes serve to suggest extreme exoticism? Might they be a reference to the boldly striped ikats of Central Asia? Regardless, they tell us that the West did not yet have clear ideas about the appearance of Chinese dress. India was also an important source of new aesthetic ideas throughout the century, but in terms of fashion, the influence was primarily in the form of textile design. It is important to keep in mind that Hindu India was characterized by draped garments without seams, shapes that were too alien to European notions of dress to be of interest. However, seamed garments worn by Indian Muslims were constructed in such a way as to have potential appeal to Western tastes for the exotic. The surplice fronts that appeared in European ladies’ bodices during the latter part of the century do bear a resemblance to the overlapping arrangement of the male Indian coat known as the jama (see fig. 5.28a and b).53 The jama was often made of white cotton and also of patterned fabrics, including many striped ones. It was cut with a very full gathered skirt, not unlike that of the European gown. The top closed with a diagonally overlapping front. At this time, the The Eighteenth Century

177

Right, Figure 5.28a. Thomas Gainsborough (1727–88), Mrs Siddons, 1785, oil on canvas, 126 × 99.5 cm. Bought 1862 (NG683) London, National Gallery. (Photo Credit: © National Gallery, London/ Art Resource, New York.) Facing, Figure 5.28b. Man’s Robe (Jama) with Poppies, 17th century, India. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Rogers Fund, 1929. Creative Commons License Zero.

men’s double-breasted waistcoat also came into style in Europe, with its diagonally overlapping front. The more loosely fitted coats (angarka, chogha, sherwani) were of relevance as models for what came to be known in the seventeenth century as the fashionable banyan (see fig. 5.29). This term originated in India, although it did not originally refer to a garment but to a class of Hindu merchants. The term originally came into use in the sixteenth century via Portuguese, as a term for an Indian trader, especially one attached to a European firm; it also referred to a Hindu trading caste in which the people ate no meat. Eventually it came to be the term for an “Indian flannel coat,” presumably one worn by such merchants. 54 The banyan is therefore generally assumed to be Indian in origin, but of course loose-fitting coats of other origins had been used in Europe for some time. The banyan or dressing gown has been generally defined as a coat worn by men as undress, but women also adopted this comfortable garment. In addition to the formal portraits of both men and women in such gowns, there are also the more 178

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

candid scenes of ladies wearing loose robes, which became very fashionable in the early eighteenth century. Such garments are well documented as a device of the studio, intended to give a timeless look that would keep the portrait from becoming dated, but also used to flatter the subject with charming and relaxed drapery. In some instances, the drapery creates a more classical than Oriental impression, with the arrangements of fabric resembling neither Turkish dress nor current fashion. Others are simple dressing gowns arranged over conventional garments. However, some are clearly exotic in origin and intent.55 We know that they were being imported from a variety of places, as well as being made domestically. It should be kept in mind that this was a style of dress imported to India along with Islam, first by the Gaznevid Turks in the thirteenth century and later by the Mughal (Mongol) invasions of the sixteenth century. Thus, the forms all derived from the same Central Asian source we have described for Turko-Mongol dress, making it difficult to distinguish one source of inspiration from the other. Since the Crusades, scholars and artists had adopted exotic elements of dress to signify their separation from the conventional in thought as in fashion. The wearing of banyans and turban-like caps by men or equivalent garments for women was considered quite suitable for the literary salons of the Enlightenment, as well as for the boudoir and the artist’s studio.

In Ottoman dress, there was still little change in the form of men’s garments, although the mandated headgear of the court would go through some alterations whenever there was a change of sultan. There was, however, considerable alteration in detail if not in basic components of Ottoman women’s dress (see fig. 5.30a and b). Since distinctive appearance was important to success in the competitive environment of the royal harem, there was certainly motivation for creativity. Although the assemblage of garments used in women’s dress was essentially the same as in previous periods, the fit and cut of these garments, particularly the entari, were quite different. The narrow fit of the top with its plunging décolletage resembled the fit of the European corseted bodice, minus the corset. It is also interesting that when European women were wearing oversized coiffures topped The Eighteenth Century

West to East: Transformations in Ottoman Dress

179

Right, Figure 5.29. Vittore Ghislandi, called Fra Galgario (1655–1743), Portrait of Count Vailetti, c. 1720. Venice, Accademia. (Photo Credit: Scala/Art Resource, New York.) The expense and ostentation of this dressing gown suggest it was intended for wearing in company. The addition of the tall, turbanlike headdress adds to the exotic effect. By this date, when massive wigs were worn, European men shaved their heads as Turks had always done. In winter, a hat or turban was desirable when the wig was put aside at home. The brocade of the waistcoat appears to be in a “bizarre silk” design, often thought to reference exotic Eastern motifs. See also figure 4.11 for an earlier striped example and the hotoz headdresses in figure 5.30.

by feathers, lace, jewels, and turbans, Ottoman court women began wearing the hotoz, an oversized headdress elaborately decorated with textiles, jewels, and plumes. The hotoz appears in images of Ottoman women around the middle of the century.56 This outsized headdress is an interesting comparison with the coiffures of Paris, but in view of the genuine exchanges in fashion seen in this period, it is difficult to determine which direction the influence might have been moving—possibly both ways. Pre180

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Left, Figure 5.30a. Refail (Rafael), Portrait of a Lady of the Court, mid-18th century, oil on cardboard, 52 × 32 cm. Suna and İnan Kıraç Foundation Orientalist Paintings Collection. (Photo Credit: İstanbul, Suna and İnan Kıraç Foundation © Uğur Ataç.) An Ottoman lady in fashionable court dress and tall hotoz headdress. Right, Figure 5.30b. Sir Joshua Reynolds, Mrs Baldwin in Eastern Dress, 1792. (Photo Credit © Compton Verney, Warwickshire, UK/Bridgeman Images.) This image by an English artist of an Englishwoman born in Smyrna shows many of the same features of dress, including the large hotoz headdress, low neckline, sheer chemise, and snug fit of the striped entari. She is also wearing the fur-lined outer coat so often copied from Ottoman dress in European fashion.

viously it was Ottoman male headgear that was likely to be very large, and it is possible that this influenced the enlargement of coiffures in later French fashion. In turn, the Ottoman ladies, seeing such coiffures worn by European women, may have enlarged their own. Increasing numbers of European women were accompanying their diplomatic and merchant husbands to Constantinople, making it more likely that Ottoman women would have opportunities to examine their exotic costumes. Lady Mary Wortley Montagu’s letters, in addition to minutely describing the dress of Ottoman women, also tell of their admiration of her own appearance both during visits to harems and the bath and also when she went out in an open carriage.57 European visitors would also have been able to observe the dress of more ordinary Ottoman neighbors or servants. The Eighteenth Century

181

Women on both sides could experiment with what they had seen and share their new ideas with family and friends at home. In this period Ottoman sumptuary decrees decried “good for nothing women” who were adopting foreign dress.58 An imperial decree of 1758 prohibited the wearing of Western dress because “this abominable situation disturbed the order among the subjects.”59 Other decrees criticized the new tight fit of the entari. There is evidence that consumption of foreign luxury goods was increasing, primarily among the Ottoman elite, and members of the minorities who dominated commercial transactions with foreigners.60 Male Ottoman dress showed less evidence of foreign influence, apart from the use of foreign textiles. Male consumption of imports mostly was of objects such as watches, weapons, or other objects for household use or decoration. This may be because the public appearance of the Turkish government and military had been so strictly defined for so long that variations in forms of dress were not possible. However, there is implicit in the sumptuary law of the period a concern that non-Muslims were attempting to escape sumptuary regulation, either by adoption of European dress or purchase of luxuries not officially allowed.

Notes

1.Fatma Müge Göçek, Rise of the Bourgeoisie, Demise of Empire: Ottoman Westernization and Social Change (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 35–39. 2. A. Ribiero, Dress in Eighteenth Century Europe (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002); M. Delpierre, Dress in France in the Eighteenth Century (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997). 3. Nurhan Atasoy, Walter B. Denny, Louise Mackie, and Hülye Tezcan, Ipek: The Crescent and the Rose: Imperial Ottoman Silks and Velvets (London: Azimuth, 2001), 182–89. 4. Halil Inalcik and Donald Quataert, An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1914 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 728; J. Scarce, Women’s Costume of the Near and Middle East (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 60; Göçek, Rise of the Bourgeoisie, Demise of Empire, 40. 5. J. Merriman, A History of Modern Europe (New York: W. W. Norton, 1996), 446–57. 6. Fatma Müge Göçek, East Encounters West: France and the Ottoman Empire in the Eighteenth Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 8. 7. Ibid., 10–31. However, the French had great reservations about the honor of this visit, both because of various domestic issues and also because of a 1706 visit to Paris by a Persian ambassador. This Persian ambassador, Mehmed Riza Bey, had left a very negative impression that had reinforced the perception that Muslims were arrogant and difficult. The Ottoman ambassador, who was under orders to make himself agreeable, would make a much more positive impression. 8. B. McGowan, “The Age of the Ayans, 1699–1812,” in An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1914, ed. Halil Inalcik and Donald Quataert (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 642–44. 9. Ibid., 645. 10. Ibid., 658–77; B. Masters, The Origins of Western Economic Dominance in the Middle East: Mercantilism and the Islamic Economy in Aleppo, 1600–1750 (New York: New York University Press, 1988), 190. 11. A. Salzman, “The Age of Tulips: Confluence and Conflict in Early Modern Consumer Culture,” in Consumption Studies and the History of the Ottoman Em182

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

pire, 1550–1922, ed. Donald Quataert (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000), 83–106; Göçek, Rise of the Bourgeoisie, Demise of Empire, 37–40. 12. Atasoy et al., Ipek, 185–89. 13. M. Genç, “Ottoman Industry in the Eighteenth Century: General Framework, Characteristics, and Main Trends,” in Manufacturing in the Ottoman Empire and Turkey, 1500–1950, ed. Donald Quataert (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994), 75. 14. E. Eldem, French Trade in Istanbul in the 18th Century (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 61–63. 15. Fangjun Ning, Costume in the U.S.-China Trade, 1790–1840 (MA thesis, Cornell University, 2006); P. J. Marshall, “The British Empire at the End of the Eighteenth Century,” in The Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire (London: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 20–24. 16. Charlotte Jirousek, “The End of the Silk Road: Implications of the Decline of Turkish Sericulture,” Textile History 29, no. 2 (1998): 201–25; Ning, Costume in the U.S.-China Trade. 17. Masters, The Origins of Western Economic Dominance in the Middle East, 194–97. 18. P. A. Van Dyke, Port Canton and the Pearl River Delta, 1690–1845 (San Diego, CA: University of Southern California, 2002). 19. Genç, “Ottoman Industry in the Eighteenth Century”; McGowan, “The Age of the Ayans,” 731–39. 20. Eldem, French Trade in Istanbul in the 18th Century, 34–39. 21. Ibid. 22. Philip Mansel, Constantinople: City of the World’s Desire, 1453–1924 (London: Penguin Books, 1995), 114. 23. P. D. Curtin, Cross-Cultural Trade in World History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1984), 198–99; Y. Duman, Notables, Textiles and Copper in Ottoman Tokat 1750–1840 (Binghamton: State University of New York Press, 1998), History: 257, 116–17. 24. Curtin, Cross-Cultural Trade in World History, 175–77. 25. McGowan, “The Age of the Ayans,” 695. 26. Masters, The Origins of Western Economic Dominance in the Middle East, 192–98. However, Masters suggests that even in hindsight the only thing the Ottomans might have done to improve their revenues would have been to encourage silk production within the empire. There was some increase in local production because the Europeans were willing to buy local silk in the absence of a sufficient Persian supply, but there was no government support of such efforts. This situation “underlines one of the sharpest contrasts between European mercantilism and the Ottoman system: that of their differing attitudes toward craft production. In adherence to the mercantilist philosophy, local European industries were given indirect subsidies through their government’s imposition of high tariffs on imports. As a result Middle Eastern and Indian cloth were slapped with high customs duties in England and the Netherlands, which reduced their competitiveness while London’s nascent silk industry was given a boost. The Ottomans, on the other hand, discouraged any new industry that would reduce revenues from import duties or that threatened the livelihood of workers already employed.” In other words, a proved source of revenue was to be maintained at the expense of potential new sources even when the revenue base of the older sources was declining. 27. Maxime Rodinson, Europe and the Mystique of Islam (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1991), 47. 28. C.-L. d. Montesquieu, Persian Letters (London: Penguin, 1973). 29. Gustave Van Roosbroeck, Persian Letters before Montesquieu (New York: Institute of French Studies, 1932). This is but one of a number of uses of the foreign observer as a device for presenting social commentary that might otherwise The Eighteenth Century

183

be dangerous to the author, dating back as far as the twelfth century. There are, for example, Marana’s Letters of a Turkish Spy (1682) and various fictitious foreign letters published in London’s Tattler and Spy, including a pair of “Persian” letters published in the Spectator in 1711 and 1714, among others. 30. William Beckford, Vatek: An Arabian Tale (New York: James Miller, 1872). 31. Mary Wortley Montagu, The Turkish Embassy Letters (London: Virago, 1994). 32. Mouradgea d’Ohsson, Tableau general de l’empire othoman: Divise en deux parties (Paris: Monsieur Firmin Didot, 1788). 33. Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, The Six Voyages of Jean-Baptiste Tavernier . . . Through Turkey into Persia, and the East Indies, Finished in the Year 1670 (London, 1678); C.-F. Volney,Voyage en Syrie et en Égypte (New York: J. Tiebout, for E. Duyckinck, 1798). 34. Rodinson, Europe and the Mystique of Islam, 52. 35. O. Ondes and E. Makzume, Lale Devri Ressami Jean Baptiste Van Mour (Istanbul: Aksoy Yayincilik, 2000), 117–23. 36. John MacKenzie, Orientalism: History, Theory and the Arts (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995), 142. 37. Metin And, Turkiye’de Italyan Sahnesi; Italyan Sahnesinde Turkiye (Istanbul: Metis Yayinlari, 1989), 145. 38. MacKenzie, 143–44. 39. And, 181–83. 40. Göçek, 73. 41. Mary Wortley Montagu, The Complete Letters of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, ed. Robert Halsband (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), 316. 42. Ibid., 317–18. 43. Ibid., 329. 44. Isobel Grundy and Robert Halsband, eds., Lady Mary Wortley Montagu: Essays and Poems and Simplicity, a Comedy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977). 45. Montagu, 338–39; vol. 2, 26–27; Isobel Grundy, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 209–12. 46. D. S. Macleod, “Cross-Cultural Cross Dressing: Class, Gender and Modernist Sexual Identity,” in Orientalism Transposed: The Impact of the Colonies on British Culture, ed. J. F. Codell and D. S. Macleod (Brookfield, VT: Ashgate, 1998). 47. I. Barry, Portrait of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1928), 180; image of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu in Turkish dress, quite detailed and accurate; after a drawing in the collection of the Earl of Harrington. Also in an image of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu upon her return from Constantinople, she appears to be wearing a Turkish headdress; from an engraving by Caroline Watson of a painting by Jonathan Richardson. Montagu, The Complete Letters of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, xi, for list; frontispiece; painting by Jonathan Richardson, senior, 1726; collection of the Earl of Harrowby, seems to be a somewhat anglicized version of Turkish dress but painted after her return to London; p. 304, from a painting attributed to Charles Philips, collection of Robert Halsband; depicts more authentic dress; p. 400, engraving of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu as “The Female Traveler,” Princeton University Library; appears to be a plate created for a posthumous edition of her letters, not from life, although Turkish costume shown is accurate. See also Macleod, “Cross-Cultural Cross Dressing,” 31. 48. Paul Cornu, ed., Galerie des Modes et Costumes Francais: Dessins d’apres Nature 1778–1787 (Paris: Librairie Centrale des Beaux-Arts, 1911). Of the 325 plates in the Cornu volumes, seventy-two are identified in some way that can be considered turquerie; this is in contrast to the three (six counting theater costume plates) examples that indicate a Chinese inspiration, and the four that cite a Ca184

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

ribbean or New World influence. Four refer to India but only in reference to the textiles used. In addition, there are twenty-eight that are identified as theatrical costume, most of which are for classical themes, but also include Turkish, Chinese, and African examples. 49. S. Blum, ed., Eighteenth-Century French Fashions in Full Color: 64 Engravings from the “Galerie des Modes,” 1778–1787 (New York: Dover, 1982). 50. K. Wawrzyniak, “Ottoman-Polish Diplomatic Relations in the Sixteenth Century,” Institute of Economics and Social Sciences (Ankara: Bilkent University, 2003). 51. E. W. Barber, The Mummies of Urumchi (New York: W. W. Norton, 1999), 54–61. 52. M. Pastoureau, The Devil’s Cloth: A History of Stripes and Striped Fabric (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991). 53. B. N. Goswamy, Indian Costumes in the Collection of the Calico Museum of Textiles (Ahmedabad: Calico Museum of Textiles, 1993), 25–47. 54. Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 163; Curtin, Cross-Cultural Trade in World History, 175–76. 55. A. Ribiero, Dress in Eighteenth-Century Europe (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002), 272–75; C. Rebora and P. Staiti, John Singleton Copley in America (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1996), 107–10. 56. F. Çagman, “Women’s Clothing,” in Woman in Anatolia: 9,000 Years of the Anatolian Woman (Istanbul: Ministry of Culture of the Turkish Republic, Topkapı Sarayi Museum, 1993), 269–71. 57. Montagu, The Complete Letters of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, 313, 324. 58. Göçek, East Encounters West, 39. 59. Ibid., 39, 124. 60. Ibid., 99.

The Eighteenth Century

185

6

The Nineteenth Century Empires Bloom and Fade

The nineteenth century saw development of the industrial system in Europe and the United States of America. European powers reached their peak with the growth of their colonial empires, encompassing much of Asia, the Western Hemisphere, and Africa (see fig. 6.1). The Ottoman Empire escaped such direct political domination but strongly experienced the economic effects of Western industrial and commercial supremacy. European commercial interests encroached upon Ottoman domestic markets and manufacturing, and the Ottoman elite increasingly turned to Western models for bureaucratic reform. European aesthetics began to have a stronger influence on Ottoman dress, and dress reform for men along Western lines became an aspect of broader government reform under the rule of Mahmud II in the early part of the century. Although the Islamic cultures of the Levant continued to be a presence in the Western imagination, the flood of goods from India and China—and later in the century from Japan—competed for attention. Colonial empires generated European interest in the artifacts and aesthetics of many other foreign cultures. The immense diversity of sources available to European consumers resulted in outrageously eclectic popular taste. Ottoman influence in Western dress was more intermittent, but it is apparent, particularly following various wars that involved the Ottomans. English, American, and French alliances with the Ottoman Empire brought a new wave of European visitors. Women now frequently accompanied their husbands and fathers, either as tourists or for all the more formal purposes that had always brought travelers. There was a great proliferation of travel writing throughout the century by both men and women.

European Dress: The Emergence of Couture and Mass Production of Clothing

By the nineteenth century and the rise of the industrial revolution, the textile and fashion industries catered to a growing bourgeoisie. Although Charles Worth first established his reputation through the patronage of Empress Eugenie and her court, his financial success was based mainly on 186

Figure 6.1. Sir William Ross, Victoria, Princess Royal in Turkish Costume, 1850. (Royal Collection Trust/© Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2017.) This “fancy portrait” of the ten-year-old princess was a birthday gift from Prince Albert to Queen Victoria. Turquerie was still fashionable for fancy dress. Note the oya lace trim on the headscarf and coat.

a clientele of wealthy bourgeois women (notably American women) who wished to proclaim their affluence via their display of the best in French couture.1 The introduction of the sewing machine in the 1850s was not only a boon to the housewife and private seamstress, but also it made possible a great expansion of ready-to-wear apparel production and, inevitably, changes in clothing construction.2 By the end of the century the beginnings of mass production produced department stores and catalogs selling clothing for men, women, and children. Prior to this time, ready-to-wear had been characterized by crude, ill-fitting garments made for the poorest classes. By the 1880s many respectable women bought ready-made clothing, though it was still expected that alterations would be have to be done to fit the individual body.3 Except for a brief period at the beginning of the century, fashionable women’s clothing was restrictive and highly codified. It was now also far more elaborate than menswear in terms of colors, patterns, materials, finishes, and forms. Between 1800 and 1815 was a period in which women’s The Nineteenth Century

187

Figure 6.2. French Fashion Plate, 1805–10. Collection of Susan Greene. The soft fabric, surplice necklines, and headdresses show the classical and exotic contemporary fashion influences of the time. The wrap fronts may be inspired by the fine muslin overgowns (jama) worn by Mughal gentlemen in India.

dress took on a relaxed, high-waisted silhouette that did not require strict corseting (see fig. 6.2). Thereafter, however, the silhouette returned to the more restrictive, fitted torso as skirts became fuller and longer, with more elaborate surface ornamentation. By 1838, when Victoria came to the throne, skirts were full and floor length, necklines and sleeves modest (except for evening), and corseting severe (see fig. 6.3). Great shawls and capes that muffled the body, together with bonnets that enclosed the face, made European women almost as modest in their street dress as Ottoman women. In the 1870s the great full skirts gave way to narrower skirts in which fabric was pulled back into bustles and elaborately draped trains. These new forms revealed the presence and motion of a lady’s legs, a fact of nature that had been long denied by fashion. This mode continued until the 1890s 188

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure 6.3. Fashion Plate, 1865. Collection of Susan Greene. The voluminous skirts are typical of this period, but the long, split hanging sleeves and matching splits in the overskirt, along with the layering and horizontal bands on the bodice, are exotic features common to Eastern dress by way of the later European Renaissance, which was in vogue at this time.

brought a wider flared skirt and the upright posture produced by hourglass corseting, wide sleeves, and high, narrow collars (see fig. 6.4a and b).4 As women’s education and spheres of activity expanded, many women began to question the legal and economic limitations placed on them. The agenda of the emerging women’s rights movement included a concern for dress reform, as the restrictions of female dress were seen as an impediment to women’s activities and a danger to their health. Experimental alternatives in dress began to appear in the 1850s and 1860s and continued throughout the century, with these new forms only gradually gaining some acceptance.5 For men, knee breeches gave way to long trousers. Men’s fashions became in many ways more rigid and codified than women’s wear, a virtual uniform in a limited range of fabrics, with variations dictated for time of The Nineteenth Century

189

Left, Figure 6.4a. Fashion Plate, 1872. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of Woodman Thompson. Skirts are becoming narrower and gathered up to the back in the characteristic bustle of the later Victorian period. They are layered with overlapping draped panels in front, and the bodice is cut in the form of a vest and shirt topped by a tailored coat or jacket. Right, Figure 6.4b. The Latest Fashions, Expressly Designed and Prepared for Le Moniteur de la Mode by Jules David. March 1, 1887. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art. The Elisha Whittelsey Collection, Elisha Whittelsey Fund, 1953.

day and formality of occasion. Exquisite fit became the mark of the fashionably dressed gentleman, and prestige followed from having one’s clothes made by the right tailor. At home, however, and among the Bohemian circles of poets and artists, there was some latitude for whimsical and daring departures from the rigors of frock coats, morning coats, and evening dress.

Muslim Dress and Reform

The nineteenth century would see drastic alterations in Ottoman dress. By the end of the century, Ottoman economic and social institutions were in a state of flux, and traditional roles were more fluid. As industrialization spread, it generated increasing quantities of consumer goods and a population that could afford these goods. The introduction of European fashions began discreetly, following the acceptance of other Western goods and ideas among the elite. This tendency was greatly accelerated by the adoption of European-style garments as bureaucratic dress by Mahmud II in 1826, a move that accompanied major military and governmental reforms. 190

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

As an outward sign of his reforms, he mandated new military uniforms and changes in bureaucratic dress, generally along Western lines (see fig. 6.5a and b). The exception to this was the fez. It was adopted from the previously modernized Egyptian army, a form of headgear that originated in Tunisia.6 The simple cylindrical fez replaced the more elaborate and varied headgear of Ottoman bureaucracy, particularly the turban. It eventually came to be worn by Ottomans of all classes and persuasions, but Turks other than government officials often still wound their turbans around the base of the fez. The fez was originally a feature of Tunisian costume and was modeled on the prototype adopted in Egypt for the army created there by Mehmed Ali Pasha. It was a symbol of modernization that was also as a proper brimless head covering for a Muslim. It was also far cheaper than supplying the army with turbans. Tunisian craftsmen were imported to establish a factory in Istanbul, but they produced fezzes with a very dull red color, claiming that the water of Constantinople was to blame. A spy sent into their workshop found that they were sabotaging the dye process to dull the color and protect their national industry. The spy became the head of the dye works for the new fez manufactory at Eyoub. Fifteen thousand fezzes a month were produced there according to Julia Pardoe’s account.7 The fez, introduced as a symbol of reform, would ironically become by the end of The Nineteenth Century

Left, Figure 6.5a. Unknown artist, Mahmud II, H. 1896. Istanbul, Topkapı Palace Museum Directorate. Although this portrait is not dated, it is known to have been done before 1829 because he is wearing traditional Ottoman imperial dress. Right, Figure 6.5b. HenriGuillaume Schlesinger, Mahmud II, Ottoman Sultan in 1808, 1839, oil on canvas, 260 × 195 cm. MV 4842. Versailles, Musée National de Versailles et de Trianon. (Photo Credit: Jean-Gilles Berizzi © RMN-Grand Palais/Art Resource, New York.) Most portraits of Mahmud II were done after 1829 when he adopted Westernized dress.

191

the century the symbol of Ottoman inflexibility and resistance to change, to be abandoned in its turn as the Ottoman Empire dissolved into the new Turkish Republic. These new dress codes abolished the distinctive and colorful appearance of the Ottoman court that had dazzled generations of European visitors. The incursions of industrially produced textiles in the Ottoman Empire also contributed to the wider acceptance of European materials and forms by ordinary citizens. The beginnings of a Western-influenced mass fashion system were visible by the end of the century. However, these reforms took time to reach beyond the imperial household and the military and civil bureaucracies. By the time Julia Pardoe was writing her travel memoir in 1836, she was able to report that some European garments were being worn by Ottoman women, whose husbands and fathers had been required to adopt the new forms of court and military dress. In describing Nazip Hanim, the beautiful favorite of the lady Asme Sultane, sister of Sultan Mahmud, she reported: “Her costume was an odd admixture of the European and the Oriental. She wore trowsers of pale blue cotton flowered with yellow; and an antery of light green striped with white, and edged with a fringe of pink floss silk; while her jacket, which was the production of a Parisian dressmaker was of dove-colored satin, thickly wadded, and furnished with a deep cape, and a pair of immense sleeves, fastened at the wrists with diamond studs.”8 Acceptance of the new fashions was far from universal and reflected the strong traditional sanctions that opposed the reforms. The basic Ottoman aesthetic of a variety of layered coats, vests, and jackets over shirt (gömlek) and baggy pants (şalvar) with sashes and traditional turban headgear was maintained by most classes until late in the nineteenth century and beyond.9

Historical Context: Empires Expand and Contract

192

The nineteenth century saw European dominance on a worldwide scale. The colonial ventures begun with merchants and missionaries in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries now became political and economic empires. The establishment of direct rule in India in 1858 and the Opium Wars between China and Britain in 1839–42 and 1856–60 established unlimited commercial access to these lands. In 1854 the United States forced the opening of Japan to trade and in 1898, following the Spanish-American War, annexed the Philippines. Everywhere the West was in ascendance, carried by its technological, economic, and military advantages along what was believed at the time to be the ordained road to the future—the very definition, in nineteenth-century terms, of modern progress. In 1500, Europeans ruled approximately 7 percent of the world’s land. By 1914 they would control 85 percent.10 Meanwhile, they were struggling with emerging nationalism, most notably in Italy and Germany, and also in eastern Europe. The major diplomatic question following the defeat of Napoleon was balance of power among the European states. Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

The one blot on this grand vista of Euro-American progress was the continued existence of the Ottoman Empire. It was now apparent to outsiders that the Ottomans were not the force they had been, and it was believed that the empire would eventually fall. The problem was to determine who would benefit when it did. This issue came to be known as the Eastern Question. On the whole, the opinion was that sustaining a weakened Ottoman Empire was preferable to dealing with its demise. Throughout this century, various combinations of European powers would alternately defend Ottoman autonomy and aid uprisings in segments of the empire, contributing to its weakness and eventual fall.11 The first serious blow to nineteenth-century Ottoman authority was Napoleon’s ill-fated invasion of Egypt in 1798. His conquest became a disaster as he faced an alliance of Turkey, Britain, Austria, and Russia. The remains of his army surrendered to the British in 1801, preserving Egypt as a province of the Ottoman Empire. But this adventure encouraged British ambitions in the Suez, crucial to the objective of better access to India (see fig. 6.6). The success of that campaign led to the rise of Mehmed Ali Pasha, an Ottoman military officer of Albanian origin who became governor of Egypt in 1805. He founded a dynasty that would last until 1953. Because of the weakening central authority of the sultanate, he was able to establish strong local rule and directly challenged Ottoman authority in 1831–33 and again in 1839–41. His experience with the French and his desire to limit Ottoman authority in Egypt inclined him to cooperation with the British. Although he remained a vassal of the sultan in name, the Ottoman government exercised little control over Egypt thereafter. After his death in 1848, his descendants proved to be weaker rulers, allowing the growth of British authority in Egypt. The Nineteenth Century

Figure 6.6. David Roberts (artist), Louis Haghe (engraver), Interview with the Viceroy of Egypt, at his Palace, Alexandria, May 12th 1839, 1849 (artwork © UK Government Art Collection). Here the British consul, Patrick Campbell, is presenting a proposal to improve the passage of travelers and goods through the Isthmus of Suez. The artist, David Roberts, is at right in civilian dress. Some of the Egyptians wear long robes and turbans, but the military officers and officials present wear the fez, jacket, and trousers that were typical of Ottoman government service at this time, features that Muhammad Ali introduced in Egypt twenty years before the reforms of Sultan Mahmud II. Compare with the earlier diplomatic meeting in figure 5.8.

193

At the same time, Serbian uprisings in the Balkans were establishing a degree of independence that would be formalized in 1878. The Greek War of Independence, in which European powers backed first the Ottomans and then the Greeks, established an independent Greek nation in the Peloponnese by 1832.12 Within Europe, alliances and confrontations were also shaped by the Eastern Question. Russia was a particular concern, since Russian success against the Ottomans would fulfill the great Russian dream of a warmwater port. For this reason, Great Britain and France generally supported the Ottoman government against the Russians.13 The opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 under British sponsorship created a long dreamed of gateway to India and the Far East. Once it was in place, it was too tempting a prize for the English to leave in Egyptian or Ottoman hands. The Arab uprising in 1881–82 was followed by the British occupation of Egypt.14 These events further served to focus British consciousness on the non-Turkish, Arab face of the Ottoman Levant. In Constantinople, the urgent need for reform finally overwhelmed the deep-set opposition to change. In 1826 Mahmud II (1808–39) abolished the Janissary corps, established an army on the European model, and undertook a number of institutional and educational reforms with partial success. He also established a foreign ministry and the foundations for the creation of permanent diplomatic missions in foreign capitals. The reform effort was continued by his son, Abdulmecid (1839–61), who instituted a sweeping program of changes known collectively as the Tanzimat reforms. These measures could not, however, resolve all of the economic, social, and structural problems of the empire.

Trade after the Industrial Revolution

194

In Europe, domestic production of all kinds of textiles proliferated with the boom of the industrial revolution. The textile trade now involved mainly importation of raw materials to supply the European domestic industries as well as the search for new markets for finished textiles. Silk was still a commodity in high demand, and Indian cotton remained a highly valued commodity. American cotton was a more accessible source of raw fiber that increasingly replaced Asian sources, at least prior to the American Civil War.15 The British government lifted its ban on the export of textile machinery in 1841, but it was not until the end of the nineteenth century that mechanized spinning and weaving equipment began to appear in Ottoman factories.16 Some manufacturers were unwilling or unable to adopt new technologies, in part because of the preexisting institutional structure of guilds and putting-out networks. At the same time, European economic penetration into manufacturing was substantial and growing with enormous investments that overwhelmed domestic competitors.17 Also imports of European goods, particularly cloth and spun thread, continued to grow. As a result, European goods were a rapidly expanding factor in Ottoman dress at all levels in the nineteenth century. Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Even so, Ottoman manufacturing continued to develop new modes of production and to provide goods not offered by foreign producers. Although by the late nineteenth century many textiles and even yarn for weaving were being imported by the Ottomans, there were some products that were still important exports. One of these products was silk. Although cocoons were exported, there was more profit in exporting thread. European mills had higher production costs and, in any case, could not meet the full demand of European silk weaving mills. Ottoman economic policies moved from the old approach of centralized control through free trade to a protected national economy by World War I.18 During this period, the Ottoman economy experienced the dislocation brought about by competition with the industrial revolution in Europe. This stimulus contributed to the restructuring of manufacturing and the subsequent growth of the Ottoman textile industry, including textile production for the domestic market after 1870. Imports of European and American cloth continued to rise. By the last quarter of the nineteenth century the infrastructure necessary for mass fashion production was in place, ready to supply the expanded commercial and bureaucratic bourgeoisie.

Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt was an important cultural event. Along with his thirty-four thousand soldiers, Napoleon brought in about a thousand civilians, many of whom were scholars, poets, and painters. In addition to the Rosetta stone and countless antiquities, the returning travelers brought back a wealth of stories and images of a fabled land that fired the French cultural imagination. This was a shift of focus away from Ottoman Turkish Constantinople and toward the Arab world.19 In this century tourism became far more adventurous than it had been in previous centuries. Illustrated travel books continued to be published. In the first half of the century many contained magnificent engravings of exotic landscapes, architecture, and daily life. In Julia Pardoe’s Beauties of the Bosphorus, the text preceded the beautiful illustrations by Bartlett, commissioned by the author. Her book is important not only because of the illustrations but also because it is an early example of a growing minority of travel books written from a woman’s perspective. Miss Pardoe accompanied her father, Major Thomas Pardoe, to Constantinople in 1836 and was able to visit a number of prominent Ottoman women. Her account of the lives of Turkish women provided a view of Ottoman life that differed significantly from that provided by male observers. She wrote a total of three travel books as well as numerous historical works and works of fiction. Unfortunately, after about 1850, inexpensive mass production of books meant that fewer were so well illustrated, though the number of authors writing was far greater than it had ever been. But as the century progressed, their viewpoints became increasingly unsympathetic or indifferent to Ottoman life and culture. Islamic culture came more and more to be discussed solely as Arab and Persian culture. The Nineteenth Century

Exchanges of Cultural Ideas: Literature, Humanities, and the Arts

195

The existence of a distinctly Ottoman culture was essentially denied by these writers. As the image of the Turk as the Sick Man of Europe came to pervade Western thinking, the admiration that had grown in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was replaced by contempt. The economic advance of Europe was now compared to the increasing poverty of the Ottoman populace, and visits to their cities confirmed these views. Authors focused on political agendas and the degradation and corruption of Islamic institutions or ignored the present in favor of the romance of archaeology. Local people became minor details in a landscape dominated by evidence of past glories and were often viewed as interlopers in their own country. Admiration for the classical past reflected a growing public belief in the West that the Turks were usurpers in the land of Thucydides, Alexander, Paul, and Constantine and deserved to be displaced. We have, for example, the popular fantasy generated by Alexander Kinglake: Eothen: Traces of Travel Brought Home from the East (1844). In the illustrations of these travels, frequently the visual fact was Ottoman even though the captions said otherwise. Byron wrote a number of works with Orientalist themes, preoccupied with the romance of the harem. He published three epics under the title The Turkish Tales. Byron was a fervent supporter of the Greek War of Independence, and his representations of Ottomans tended to place them in an unfriendly light. American travelers wrote of their adventures, though through the lenses of their preconceptions. Mark Twain’s satirical account of a shipload of American tourists bound for the Holy Land in The Innocents Abroad (1869) was the literary hit of the year and established him as a national celebrity.20 His description of the diverse crowds in Constantinople is a good example of his hyperbole, which, nonetheless, was a fairly accurate description of the wild diversity of costume to be seen there: The men were dressed in all the outrageous, outlandish, idolatrous, extravagant, thunder-and-lightning costumes that ever a tailor with the delirium tremens and seven devils could conceive of. There was no freak of dress too crazy to be indulged in; no absurdity too absurd to be tolerated; no frenzy in ragged diabolism too fantastic to be attempted. No two men were dressed alike. It was a wild masquerade of all imaginable costumes—every struggling throng in every street was a dissolving view of stunning contrasts. Some patriarchs wore awful turbans, but the grand mass of the infidel horde wore the fiery red skull-cap they call a fez. All the remainder of the raiment they indulged in was utterly indescribable.21

In contrast, there is Herman Melville’s Clarel: A Poem and Pilgrimage in the Holy Land (1876). Melville’s style was more the solemn, spiritual tone of a pilgrim.22 Along with the tourists, there were also American merchants now competing in the same Eastern markets with Europeans. American missionaries followed in their footsteps, supported by American churches that learned directly of exotic places through letters and visiting lectures from

196

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

their missionaries. Missions would eventually found schools all over the Ottoman Empire. Many of them still exist today as secular institutions run by the state in Turkey, Lebanon, and Egypt. Gilbert Grosvenor, president and a founder of the National Geographic Society, was born in Turkey to missionary parents. His father taught at Robert College, a mission project in Istanbul founded in 1863. It was the first American institution of higher learning established abroad.23 In 1871 the American School for Girls was also opened. In the next century, after the founding of the Turkish Republic, these two institutions ultimately led to the creation of Bosphorus University, which remains one of Turkey’s leading secular institutions of higher learning. Large numbers of Ottoman Turks traveled to Europe in this century for trade, to establish permanent diplomatic missions, and even for education, particularly after the Ottoman reforms of the 1820s and 1830s. For the first time a significant number of Turkish travelers began to bring European culture, style, tastes, and political ideas home to their own country, substantially contributing to the rapid changes occurring there.24 In painting, a substantial Orientalist school emerged in the nineteenth century that included some work by Delacroix and Ingres, as well as more committed Orientalists led by Gerome and including Ludwig Deutsch and Frederic Leighton. Orientalist painters came from every country in Europe and America and even included Ottoman artists. The most outstanding of the Ottoman painters, Osman Hamdi Bey, studied under Gerome in Paris and produced exquisite images of traditional Ottoman life that avoided the prurience or violence of some Orientalist images.25 He became the director of the first museum in the Ottoman Empire, the Archaeology Museum, which exists to this day. The development of its collections, gathered from all over the Ottoman Empire, became one of his great life works. Opera continued to depict exotic stories as a vehicle for spectacle. Meyerbeer wrote Abu Hassan in 1810; Cherubini offered Ali Baba in 1834. Several operas were produced in this period on the subject of Mehmet II, conqueror of Constantinople. The most important was by Rossini, originally published and produced as Maometto II in 1820. However, this sympathetic presentation was not acceptable in the climate of the Greek War of Independence (1821–29), which became the cause célèbre of Romantic intellectuals and certain European governments. So Rossini rewrote the libretto, exchanging Turkish characters for Greek ones, and presented it in 1826 under the new title The Seige of Corinth. Rossini had previously used Levantine themes, including The Italian Girl in Algiers (1813), The Turk in Italy in (1814), and Adina, or the Caliph of Baghdad (1818).26 Other opera productions with Turkish plots appeared later in the century, such as Teodulo Mabellini’s I Veneziani a Costantinopoli (A Venetian in Constantinople) in 1844. Later in the century, librettos played to the growing interest in other corners of the world. Bizet’s exotic operas included The Pearl Fishers (1863) set in Ceylon, La Guzla de L’Emir (1863) with an Ottoman setting, Ivan IV

The Nineteenth Century

197

Facing top left, Figure 6.7a. “Peasant woman from the environs of Damas (Damascus); (2): Druze woman from the environs of Damas (Damascus); and (3) married woman of Damas (Damascus),” 1873. Library of Congress. (Photograph by Pascal Sébah.) Facing top right, Figure 6.7b. “Married Muslim woman of Sa’rit (Sarit) wearing indoor clothing; (2): married Muslim woman of Sa’rit (Sarit) wearing outdoor clothing; and (3): Kurdish woman from Kharpout (Harput),” 1873. Library of Congress. (Photograph by Pascal Sébah.) Facing bottom left, Figure 6.7c. “Studio portrait of models wearing traditional clothing from the province of Îles d’Archipel (Islands of the Archipelago), Ottoman Empire,” 1873. Library of Congress. (Photograph by Pascal Sébah.) Facing bottom right, Figure 6.7d. “Studio portrait of models wearing traditional clothing from the province of Aïdin (Aydın), Ottoman Empire] (1): Christian merchant of Aïdin (Aydın); (2): Rabbi of Smyrna (İzmir); and (3): bourgeois of Manissa,” 1873. Library of Congress. (Photograph by Pascal Sébah.)

198

(1865), and Djamileh (1871). Productions set in India included Louis Spohr’s Jessonda (1823), Massenet’s The King of Lahore (1883), and Delibes’s Lakhme. Meyerbeer’s exotic offering was L’africaine (1865). Although there was increasing fascination with the Far East, it was relatively late in the century before Japan would make its mark on the stage. Saint Saens’s La Princesse Jaune (1872) was the first to attempt this subject, but Gilbert and Sullivan’s confection, The Mikado (1885), was the first major success, followed by Puccini’s more serious Madame Butterfly (1900). By this time a number of composers had traveled to the East, and the music they heard directly influenced their work, once again expanding the musical vocabulary of the West. Literary subjects also shifted further east as the century progressed. The works of Rudyard Kipling are among the most well-known works of Orientalist literature. His primary subject was India, and India was at the center of British Orientalist interest in the nineteenth century.27 The Romantics, inspired by Napoleon in Egypt, the colonization of India, and the Greek War of Independence, generated quantities of Orientalist literature. Walter Savage Landor’s Gebir (1798), set in Egypt, slightly precedes this period and made a radical argument against the colonization of peopled countries. Most Romantic poets dabbled in Orientalist themes. Southey’s The Curse of Kehama (1810) is a Romantic tragedy set in India that influenced works by Keats and Shelley. Other books include Thomas Moore’s Lalla Rookh (1817), Victor Hugo’s Les Orientales (1829), and Pierre Loti’s more than forty books of poetry and fiction set in Constantinople, Palestine, North Africa, India, Tahiti, and Japan. Loti was possibly the most romantic of the Orientalist novelists. His military career took him around the world and his novels were embroidered versions of his experiences. The most famous of these was his semi-autobiographical romance Aziyadé, based on an affair he had with a married Turkish woman in Constantinople. This adventure shaped the rest of his life. His novels were deeply sentimental, but they provide exquisitely detailed visions of the experiences and places he describes. He became a famous eccentric, admired by Proust and cultivated by much of the artistic world of his day. A few American writers had ventured into Orientalist fiction in the late eighteenth century, including Benjamin Franklin with his Arabian Tale (1779). Washington Irving wrote several works on Moorish Spain and Islam, including Tales of the Alhambra (1832). Ralph Waldo Emerson contributed an essay on “Persian Poetry” (1875) in which he explored transcendentalist ideas of the Orient and Islam with some ambivalence. He admired the ideals of the Sufi poets but ultimately disapproved of Islam based on the alleged quality of its civilization, which he judged to be barbaric and brutish.28 In 1851, England’s Great Exhibition opened in the specially constructed Crystal Palace, an event that introduced the English consumer class to the wonders of the world. Artifacts from every part of the British Empire and every place where British commerce had a toehold were on display, as well as the glories of the English past. The exhibition was the founding of what Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

The Nineteenth Century

199

would eventually become the Victoria and Albert Museum, and it was an enormous stimulus to the arts, and to design in all forms, as well as to the growing culture of consumption.29 In 1873, the Ottoman Sultan Abdulaziz decreed that for the first time, the Ottoman Empire would participate in a world’s fair to be held in Vienna. He ordered Osman Hamdi Bey, who was director of the Museum of Antiquities in Istanbul, and a European-trained painter, to assemble regional costumes from every province of the Ottoman Empire. The photography was done by Pascal Sébah, whose studio was one of the first and best known in Istanbul. Seventy-four plates were created. Osman Hamdi Bey also generated the text for the large-format book, and a French introduction and translation were added by Marie de Launay. The costumes were also exhibited in Vienna. This collection of documented images is the earliest systematic visual presentation of regional dress in the Ottoman Empire. It includes representations of all the ethnic groups and their geographic variations in dress. Copies can be found in libraries all over Europe, and the US Library of Congress provides digital images of the complete set (see fig. 6.7a, b, c, and d).30 European architects found new ways to incorporate many features of Ottoman, Indian, and Chinese forms and interior detailing. The Brighton Pavilion was the most famous of Orientalist architectural fantasies with its Muslim Indian domes and minarets and chinoiserie interiors. Islamic architectural forms were particularly influential in this period. Victorian gothic structures include significant Islamic elements. For the most part, however, architectural borrowings from the East were isolated oddities, and it was in decorative detailing and interior design that these influences entered the mainstream. There were also picturesque “follies,” such as pavilions, a “mosque” built in Kew Gardens (now removed), and a fashion for “Turkish tents” to provide a visual diversion in a garden.31 Sir Frederic Leighton was a British artist and a president of the Royal Academy of Arts. In addition to his extensive travels and study in Europe, he visited the Middle East several times in the 1860s and 1870s, where he collected many forms of Islamic art. He acquired many Islamic architectural elements and finishes that he brought back to London to be installed throughout his home, which is now a museum. The reception room is completely finished with architectural elements taken from a home in Syria with seventeenth-century Iznik tilework, a black marble pool, and an elaborately carved and painted ceiling. Although Leighton House is a very dramatic example of Orientalist taste in late nineteenth-century British design, “Turkish corners” became a common element in more conventional homes, featuring a divan draped in Eastern textiles and laden with cushions with Oriental carpets to complete the scene. As goods from Turkey, Iran, Arabia, and India became widely available, this taste for the exotic, once confined to the elite, became part of popular culture. The emergence of industrial methods of production that could generate enormous quantities of goods created a desperate need for good design. One response to this need was the Arts and Crafts movement in England. 200

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

This group of designers sought to combine social concern for the welfare of factory laborers with a desire for improved quality in craftsmanship and design. Turning to the model of medieval guilds, they adapted medieval design to their new aesthetic. Because Islamic design had so strongly inspired medieval art and design, Islamic forms and artifacts also became important elements in Arts and Crafts style. The Grammar of Ornament (1856), compiled by Owen Jones, was another attempt to improve design by providing visual resources based on other cultures.32 It was a visual reference work depicting motifs found in great civilizations of all times and places. It is still in print as an important reference for designers. In another work, Principles of Decorative Design (1873), Christopher Dresser, an admirer and collaborator of Owen Jones, stated that “gorgeous and beautiful developments of art . . . have existed, or still exist, with the Persians, Indians, Turks, Moors, Chinese, and Japanese . . . All the forms of ornament which these people have created are worthy of the most careful and exhaustive consideration, as they present art qualities of the highest kind.”33 As these theorists inspired production, Arthur Lasenby Liberty marketed it. His London shop was initially known as the East India House and later by his own name. From first opening in 1875, Liberty offered exotic sources of design in textiles, carpets, and other decorative objects, eventually expanding into fashion and accessories of all kinds. Today it is a department store still known for offering the best in design, whatever its source. In the nineteenth century it was central to the Arts and Crafts movement in England, and the subsequent Aesthetic style, and was known for its exceptional collections of Islamic, Chinese, and Japanese objects.34 Liberty’s collaborations with William Morris, Edward William Godwin, Charles Francis Annesley Voysey, and many others were of enormous importance in the development of new design styles that owed much to the Oriental traditions he also sold.

In Europe and the United States, Eastern elements continued to appear in fashion. The first third of the century was characterized by a neoclassical style in fashion, as in architecture and furnishings. To achieve this “classical” style, the soft, draped effects of Indian muslins were accessorized with Kashmiri shawls and often topped off with a turban. The exotic blended well with the classical; after all, the Arab thawb was descended from the Roman tunic.35 In France there was a particularly intense craze for things Eastern, following Napoleon’s adventures in Egypt and continuing France’s relationship with the Ottomans dating back to the sixteenth century. Chinese, Japanese, and Indian textiles and accessories were also important elements in fashionable dress throughout the nineteenth century. China was exporting parasols, canes, fans, and shawls as well as cloth for the fashion trade and was even beginning to manufacture dresses and dressing gowns for European and American consumers by the 1830s according to European patterns.36 India provided an array of accessories, The Nineteenth Century

Exoticism in Nineteenth-Century European and North American Dress

201

jewelry, and shawls. The best known of these were the fine Kashmiri shawls that were a staple of fashion from the beginning of the century until the 1870s. After this date they fell out of fashion and were adapted to interior decor or cut up and recycled as dressing gowns, vests, or evening coats. Embroidered Indian muslins were particularly important to fashion in the first quarter of the century, but embroidered textiles from China and Japan were important elements of fashion throughout the century. However, apart from the occasional lady’s evening coat from the 1890s or possibly the surplice-front gown from the beginning of the century, the forms of Chinese, Indian, and Japanese garments did not commonly appear in Western fashion except as textile design motifs. This may be partly due to a lack of visual information about the components of dress in more distant places, but it can also be put down to the great differences between the forms of Eastern dress and the tailored, closely contoured apparel and body image that are still standard in the West. By the nineteenth century, the wearing of Turkish dress, or elements of Turkish dress, acquired meanings drawn from more regular contact between the cultures. Meanings applied to the wearing of Islamic dress by women fell into one of two categories. The older set of meanings was provided by men who visited the Muslim world. They had no opportunity for direct contact with the women of Turkish households. As a result, their commentaries mainly reflect their own erotic fantasies about life among harem women. These fantasy ideas inspired European women to dress up in Turkish costume to amuse their husbands or lovers. The other set of meanings is based on European women’s observations of Ottoman society and their personal meetings with Ottoman women in their homes. These encounters demonstrated that the harem was simply the private family space of the home and led to the further discovery that, at the time, there were some advantages enjoyed by Ottoman women in both personal and sartorial terms. Ottoman women, their dress, and their legal rights were admired by many European women interested in feminist reform. In the eighteenth century, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu’s Embassy Letters painted a sympathetic and respectful picture of Ottoman women. As described and illustrated in the previous chapter, Lady Montagu noted that they possessed legal property rights and legal protections that far surpassed the rights of Western women. She adopted their comfortable and modest dress as a symbol of her admiration and wore it on her return to England, where she expressed her views on marriage and women’s rights through her writings and in her personal life. In the early nineteenth century, other female travelers published memoirs in which they expressed similar views based on their observations in the Levant: notably Lady Hester Stanhope, Julia Pardoe, Isabel Burton, Anne Blunt, and Isabella Bird Bishop.37 These writers commented on the rights enjoyed by Ottoman women but not by their Euro-American counterparts. Some found it convenient to ignore the religious and educational disadvantages faced by Ottoman women, but the legal, conjugal, and social freedoms they noted were real. This Western perception of these differ202

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

ences was confirmed by a Muslim visitor to Europe, Abu Talib Khan. Although he disapproved of many aspects of English women’s behavior, he noted that they were more restricted in their movements, could not go out after dark, had no property rights, and thus were at a disadvantage compared with women in his own country.38 When Julia Pardoe visited Constantinople in 1836 with her father, she went to great lengths to obtain invitations from Turkish women there: as I was peculiarly situated during my residence in the East, and enjoyed advantages and opportunities denied to the generality of travelers, who as far as the natives are concerned, pass their time in Turkey “unknowing and unknown,” . . . It is also a well-attested fact that the entree of native houses, and intimacy with native families, are not only extremely difficult, but in most cases impossible to Europeans; and hence the tissue of fables which, like those of Sheherezade, have created genii and enchanters ab ovo usque ad mala, in every account of the East. The European mind has become so imbued with ideas of Oriental mysteriousness, mysticism, and magnificence, and it has been so long accustomed to pillow its faith on the marvels and metaphors of tourists, that it is to be doubted whether it will willingly cast off its old associations, and suffer itself to be undeceived . . . If, as we are all prone to believe, freedom be happiness, then are the Turkish women the happiest, for they are certainly the freest individuals in the Empire. It is the fashion in Europe to pity the women of the East; but it is ignorance of their real position alone which can engender so misplaced an exhibition of sentiment. I have already stated that they are permitted to expostulate, to urge, even to insist on any point wherein they may feel an interest; nor does an Osmanli husband ever resent the expressions of his wife.39

Fanny Janet Blunt, who lived for twenty years in the Ottoman Empire, wrote that I have seldom met with [a Turkish woman) who did not make use of her liberty; in one sense she may not have so much freedom as Englishwomen have, but in many others she possesses more. In her home she is perfect mistress of her time and of her property, which she can dispose of as she thinks proper. Should she have cause of complaint against any one, she is allowed to be very open spoken, holds her ground, and fights her own battles with astonishing coolness and decision . . . should a lady possess any property the husband cannot assume any right over it, nor over any of the rest of her belongings. The wisdom and generosity of this . . . cannot be too highly commended.40

This was written four years before the passage of the Married Women’s Property Act by the British Parliament in 1882.41 The more conservative Sophia Lane Poole lived in Cairo from 1842 to 1844, where women were more strictly sequestered than in Constantinople. Even so, she confirmed the advantages enjoyed by Muslim women in terms of legal property and marital and family rights. However, the devout Mrs. Poole judged that these benefits were far outweighed by what she viewed as the moral degradation of the harem system that could only be corrected by Christian conversion.42 The Nineteenth Century

203

Lady Hester Stanhope (1776–1839) was a nonconformist from a very highly placed family in England. As daughter of the Earl of Stanhope and niece of Prime Minister William Pitt, she had independent means and opportunities for travel not available to most women of her class. In 1810 she made her first journey to the Ottoman Empire. After many adventures, she eventually settled near Sidon in what is now Lebanon and never returned to England. Famous as a notorious eccentric, a pilgrimage to her mountaintop home was part of the itinerary of every notable traveler of the age. Her scandalized family cut off her allowance, but Lady Stanhope remained in her adopted land until her death. Although she often expressed contempt for her Ottoman neighbors, she also believed that as a woman in this setting she had a degree of independence that she could never have enjoyed in her homeland. Her adoption of Turkish dress was an expression of her autonomy.43 Other nonconformists of rank such as Lady Archibald Campbell sought to expand the meaning of womanhood in part through dress. On one occasion, she shocked a society hostess by appearing at a ball at Marlborough House dressed in a costume featuring full trousers that elicited comment on her daring “Arabian Nights Dress.”44 All of this demonstrates that when Amelia Jenks Bloomer promoted “Turkish trousers” as a model for reform dress, she was not the first to do so, and her choice of costume had deeper meaning than mere physical emancipation from corseting and crinolines. She promoted the Bloomer costume through the feminist newspaper The Lily, and the idea spread across the United States and Europe (see fig. 6.8). Mrs. Bloomer and her associates wanted to equate Turkish costume with the perception of the superior legal situation and relative freedom of Turkish women. Unfortunately, this mode of dress was also associated with notions of moral impropriety in the minds of many. In spite of the modesty and attached reform implications of the Bloomer costume, the intense reaction 204

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Facing, Figure 6.8. “Amaelia Bloomer,” The Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs, New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations. This clipping from a German newspaper [“Amelia” is misspelled] shows how far this image of feminist dress reform had spread. Left, Figure 6.9. “Vivandières of the French Army,” 1859. Art and Picture Collection, New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations. The different costumes are related to different army divisions. Note the jacket and turban of the Zouave on the left.

of conservatives against this sign of women’s emancipation was not merely a reaction to the bifurcated garment as a masculine preserve, although that was certainly a powerful factor. The contradictory symbolism inherent in wearing Turkish trousers was familiar to both sides of the debate over women’s rights. While to the suffragist it stood for liberation and social equity, to a conservative Christian opponent of reform, the wearing of Muslim dress was in itself something close to blasphemy and a symbol of depravity.45 In addition, this form of dress had been adopted by women’s auxiliaries to military units, first in Europe and then during the American Civil War (see fig. 6.9). These women, referred to as vivandières or cantinières, acted as field nurses, provided laundry and mending services, and sold food and liquor to the soldiers. However useful they may have been to the army, this was not a respectable occupation, and their dress was not something that a conventional lady could adopt, no matter how comfortable, or how strongly they might support the women’s rights movement. We must also keep in mind that in the 1850s European and North American ladies barely admitted to having legs under their full skirts. Bloomers would only begin to appear in public as sport attire after the era of the bustle, when the tight fit of the front of the dress allowed the motion of respectable European women’s legs to be seen for the first time in centuries. The Nineteenth Century

205

Figure 6.10. “Zoavo (Algeria),” 1846. Art and Picture Collection, New York Public Library Digital Collections. Accessed December 12, 2017. http://digitalcollections.nypl .org/items/510d47e1-0b44 -a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99.

206

Perhaps that public admission had to be made before women could wear pants in public. However, bloomers would eventually enter the mainstream of dress, first as exercise wear for girls and by the 1890s as cycling and beach wear for women. More subtle and acceptable uses of turquerie were also to be found in nineteenth-century fashion. Surface decoration styles that ultimately derive from Ottoman traditions appeared in both men’s and women’s dress throughout the nineteenth century. The use of couched cord or braid, sometimes referred to as soutache braid, was a long-standing characteristic of Ottoman military and bureaucratic dress. This feature had spread to military and general dress throughout the Levant and across North Africa during the centuries of Ottoman rule. The Zouave uniform appears first in the French Zouave, or Turcos regiments, originally formed in the 1830s as companies of native Algerian troops under French command. They eventually came to include other French subjects, the beginnings of the famed French Foreign Legion. The military dress of Algeria had retained its Ottoman-style, braidtrimmed jackets and baggy trousers after the French occupation, and this uniform was adopted by the new French colonial regiments (see fig. 6.10). These Zouave units fought not only in Algeria but also in the Crimea and in Italy against Garibaldi and his nationalists. Garibaldi himself spent a period of time in Tunisia and adopted the flamboyant Zouave style for his own supporters. The bravery and color of these regiments became legendary and inspired Zouave regiments in both the British and American armies. The colorful Zouave dress, with its elaborate Ottoman-style soutache braid trim, as well as the legendary bravery of the Zouave soldier were undoubtedly an inspiration in fashion as well as in military dress (see fig. 6.11).46 Another significant feature of Islamic dress, extensively discussed in previous chapters, was the use of conspicuously arranged layering. In the 1870s the bustle reappeared, as it had during the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when it was associated with Turkish dress. The effect was of an overskirt that was pulled back and tucked up as was commonly done with the long coats worn by Turkish women and men. Often the bustle is attached to the bodice, which may be designed to look as if it is a frontbuttoning jacket, in some cases with an overvest suggested, much like an Ottoman woman’s coat and layered vests. The nineteenth-century appearance of the tucked-up skirt and then the bustle occurs after the Crimean War, the intensive activity around the construction of the Suez Canal and its opening in 1869, attended by the royalty of Europe. The Russo-Turkish war of 1877–78 also kept the Turks in the public consciousness of Europe. Of course, by the late nineteenth century these styles are also a reference to the late eighteenth-century and seventeenth-century versions. Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure 6.11. “The Zouave Jacket, for Dinner or Evening Dress, Two Designs” (from Godey’s Lady’s Book and Magazine), 1860. Art and Picture Collection, New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations. The caption states it is made of embroidered velvet or cashmere and “worn open from the throat, à la Zouave, displaying a white silk or muslin vest underneath.”

Most coats and jackets worn by European women, like suit jackets worn by men, were fully appropriated into the European dress aesthetic and cannot be thought of as Orientalist elements in fashion. However, there were still exotic forms with Eastern associations as well as an apparent awareness of some of these forms. The dolman is an example. In Turkish, dolman or dolaman is a word for a type of outer coat, frequently worn slung over the shoulders in a cape-like fashion, with the sleeves left hanging.47 Coats worn in this way were common in Polish and Hungarian military dress from the seventeenth century onward, and the form became more widespread in the nineteenth century. The term dolman also appears in The Nineteenth Century

207

Figure 6.12a. “Quartermaster Fabry, 1st Hussars,” c. 1858. Anne S. K. Brown Military Collection, Brown University Library.

Hungarian vocabulary, where prolonged rule and diplomatic alliance with the Ottomans influenced dress throughout the region. In Hungarian, the term dolman refers specifically to a pelisse or outer coat that is part of military uniform. In Ottoman Turkish, the term refers to any outer coat and was often worn over the shoulders like a cape, with the sleeves hanging down. Hussars were originally Hungarian regiments that dressed in a flamboyantly Eastern manner with elaborate tall headgear, often with plumes, horizontal braid trim, and a short fur-lined outer jacket that could be buttoned up snugly but was usually worn over the shoulder like a cape, held in place by a cord across the front and under one arm. The Hussar regiments were widely copied in all European armies in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, along with the Zouave regiments that were even more Oriental in their costume. The Hussar regiments that served under Napoleon were particularly notable. In the late 1850s, studio portraits were done

208

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure 6.12b. “Monsieur Ducel Mameluke de la Garde, 1813–1815,” c. 1858. Anne S. K. Brown Military Collection, Brown University Library.

of some of Napoleon’s veterans in their original uniforms (see fig. 6.12a and b). Fur lining is another feature of both Ottoman coats and the uniform of the Hussar, and some fashionable Western dolmans might be fur lined or fur trimmed. However, a dense fringe or fur edging was more likely, and this heavily textured border was an almost universal feature of the dolman of the 1870s and the 1880s. The term dolman was applied in the late nineteenth century to a ladies’ outer garment (see fig. 6.13). The use of this type of garment first appeared along with the draped bustle in the 1870s. Peterson’s Magazine for January 1873 asserts that “All the new garments for the coming season are of the ‘Dolman’ shape. . . . Our design . . . is fine beaver cloth, braided with heavy embroidery braid, either in silk or mohair. Finish at the edges with a heavy cut sewing silk, fringes, or a worsted bullion fringe.” Fur could also be used to trim or line this garment. It generally had a loosely fitted front with either layered panels or partial sleeves that were seamed at the cuff but not

The Nineteenth Century

209

Figure 6.13. “Winter Costume, Dec. 1883.” Art and Picture Collection, New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations. “Dolman of red and brown checked Cheviot.” This ladies’ dolman has the function of a cape but is tailored to fit over the bustle arrangement and the bent arm.

210

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

along the arm. There was a wide opening in the body of the garment under the sleeves. In some examples, the sleeves could be worn or the arms withdrawn to let the sleeves hang. Fashionable male dress was generally very strictly defined and sober in this period. However, dressing gowns and smoking jackets were forms of coats that European and North American men could wear in their leisure time, which together with fez-like smoking caps still had exotic cachet.48 These dressing gowns and caps were descendants of the banyans and turban-like caps worn at least since the seventeenth century and associated with gowns found in all parts of the Islamic world from India to Istanbul. Such styles offered not only comfort and escape from the rigidities of public life but also, in some instances, were attire that mildly challenged established notions of male propriety. Such attire was the mark of the intellectual, the artist, and the aesthetically inclined gentleman. In some cases, the fez might be embellished with gold embroidery, made of fine silk or velvet, or even be an imported genuine article (see fig. 6.14a and b). Long after the Ottoman court had adopted Westernized suits and uniforms, a similar morning undress of traditional Ottoman garments was described as informal private attire for Ottoman gentlemen. In 1878 Fanny Janet Blunt described such an ensemble as a routine part of the sultan’s morning in his private residence, where he might receive officials: “It is here that the Padishah resorts between nine and ten in the morning, attired in his gedjlik or morning neglige; consisting of a tekke, or white skull-cap; a bright-coloured intari (dressing gown) and eichdon (trousers) of similar material; a pair of roomy terliks (slippers), a kirka (quilted jacket), or a kirk (pelisse lined with fur) according to the season. . . .Thus attired, he resorts to his study and gives his attention to state affairs, or to any other occupations that suit his tastes and inclinations.”49 The Nineteenth Century

Left, Figure 6.14a. “Gentleman’s Smoking Cap in the Form of a Fez,” 19th century. Collection of Susan Greene. This example is of silk velvet, embellished in silk embroidery. Patterns for making and decorating fezzes or smoking caps were easy to find in needlework books and magazines. Right, Figure 6.14b. “Gentleman Wearing a Fez,” c. 1870s. Carte de Visite, collection of Susan Greene. This fez looks as if it were covered in wool embroidery, with a generous wool tassel, possibly made by a lady of this gentleman’s household. Compare with the tasseled Ottoman fezzes in figures 6.5 and 6.7.

211

Turkish dress was therefore considered the dress of comfort, relaxation, and informality in both worlds by the late nineteenth century. This association of exoticism and comfort was extended to women as well, as recommended in Harper’s Bazaar of January 3, 1880: “A lady in the morning, in her dressing-gown, wears a turban made of a Madras handkerchief, a batiste handkerchief with a colored hem, or a Turkish fez of plush, trimmed with white lace and ribbons with oriental designs.”

Westernization and Reform in Ottoman Dress

212

Western fashions for men arrived in Turkey in the 1820s, mandated as part of sweeping reforms undertaken at that time. The new dress codes were aimed primarily at men of the Ottoman bureaucratic elite (see fig. 6.15). However, it was inevitable that these men would either encourage or tolerate the fashion adventures of the women of their households. A few elite women were acquiring European articles of clothing at least by the 1830s, but Turkish women apparently began to wear European fashions in substantial numbers by the last third of the century. By the end of the nineteenth century, shops in the Pera district of Constantinople were providing the latest in European fashions to a Muslim as well as non-Muslim clientele.50 As the century progressed, European dress became a sign of modernity and liberation for elite Ottoman women, just as it was perceived for elite men. There is a certain irony here. While some European and AmeriOttoman Dress and Design in the West

can women were adopting Turkish dress as a signifier of reform, Ottoman men and women were adopting European dress, also in the name of reform.51 However, there was also a culture of resistance among many Turkish Muslims of both sexes in opposition to the adoption of Euro-American fashions and consumer goods. This resistance reflected growing Muslim and Turkish nationalism and widespread resentment of expanding European hegemony.52 Yet the penetration of European goods, including fashion, into elite markets was undeniable. This contradiction reflects the complexity of the economic, cultural, and political debate that was creating such turmoil in the Ottoman world. The fact that industrial technologies and capitalist marketing strategies originated in Europe and the United States made it somewhat inevitable that many aspects of Turkish public life, including dress, would take on a Euro-American form. Initially, however, primarily the non-Muslim middle and upper classes and the Muslim bureaucratic elites were the most likely to adopt Western forms. This pattern would not change very much until the economic and social changes of the early twentieth century created the necessary conditions for the development of a true mass fashion system. Even then, this transformation of style was mostly limited to an urban elite until well after the establishment of the Turkish republic. The new republic would bring not only new mandated dress reforms but also changing economic patterns. The expansion of the Westernized mass fashion system to a broader spectrum of society would occur only gradually throughout the twentieth century and even then would remain a source of controversy.53

Facing, Figure 6.15. “Famille Turque en Compagnie de Cheika,” 1865. Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles (96.R.14), Pierre de Gigord Collection of Photographs of the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey, 1850– 1958. The older seated man wears a traditional quilted entari (coat), tekke (small cap) with a small wrapped turban, and şalvar. The servant is dressed in a similar style. The young man standing at the back is wearing a Western suit and fez. The women wear the feraçe and yaşmak, the outer coat and veils that were standard for fashionable urban women in public. There could be Westernized clothing under their coats, but at this early date it isn’t likely. Their yaşmak cover their faces as law and custom required but are so sheer they conceal almost nothing.

1. C. Milbank, Couture, the Great Designers (New York: Stewart, Tabori and Chang, 1985), 22–24. 2. Naomi Tarrant, The Development of Costume (London: Routledge, 1994), 122–24. 3. C. Kidwell, Suiting Everyone: The Democratization of Clothing in America (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1974). 4. A. Gernsheim, Victorian and Edwardian Fashion (New York: Dover, 1981). 5. G. V. Fischer, Pantaloons and Power: A Nineteenth-Century Dress Reform in the United States (Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 2001), 161–73. 6. P. Baker, “The Fez in Turkey: A Symbol of Modernization?” Costume 20 (1986): 72–85. 7. Julia Pardoe, The Beauties of the Bosphorus, vol. 2 (London: Virtue, 1842), 350–55. 8. Pardoe, vol. 1, 305. 9. J. Scarce, Women’s Costume of the Near and Middle East (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 81. 10. J. Merriman, A History of Modern Europe (New York: W. W. Norton, 1996), 595–97, 999–1002. 11. Donald Quataert, The Ottoman Empire, 1700–1922 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 55–59. 12. A. Hourani, A History of the Arab Peoples (Cambridge: Belknap, 1991), 273; Quataert, 55–57; S. Searight, The British in the Middle East (New York: Atheneum, 1970), 76–78.

Notes

The Nineteenth Century

213

13. The wars took place in 1676–81, 1687, 1689, 1695–96, 1710–12 (part of the Great Northern War), 1735–39, 1768–74, 1787–91, 1806–12, 1828–29, 1853–56 (part of the Crimean War), and 1877–78 (Encyclopedia Britannica online). 14. Frank Karabell, Parting the Desert: Creating the Suez Canal (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003). 15. J. R. Killick, “The Cotton Operations of Alexander Brown and Sons in the Deep South, 1820–1860. Charles W. Ramsdell Prize Winner for Southern History, 1977–8.” Journal of Southern History 43, no. 2 (1977): 169–94. 16. Donald Quataert, Ottoman Manufacturing in the Age of the Industrial Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 40, 90, 118, 162. 17. Fatma Müge Göçek, Rise of the Bourgeoisie, Demise of Empire: Ottoman Westernization and Social Change (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 112. 18. Halil Inalcik and Donald Quataert, An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1914 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 762–63. 19. Maxime Rodinson, Europe and the Mystique of Islam (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1991), 58–66. 20. M. M. Obeidat, American Literature and Orientalism (Berlin: Klaus Schwartz Verlag, 1998), 117–21. 21. Samuel Langhorne Clemens, The Innocents Abroad; or, The new Pilgrim’s Progress; being some account of the steamship Quaker City’s pleasure excursion to Europe and the Holy Land; with descriptions of countries, nations, incidents, and adventures (Hartford, CT: American Publishing, 1869), 262. 22. Herman Melville, Clarel: A Poem and Pilgrimage in the Holy Land (New York: Hendricks House, 1960). 23. John Freely, A History of Robert College (Istanbul: Yapi Kredi Bankasi, 2000), 9. 24. Quataert, The Ottoman Empire; Göçek, Rise of the Bourgeoisie, Demise of Empire, 73–86. 25. J. Sweetman, The Oriental Obsession: Islamic Inspiration in British and American Art and Architecture 1500–1920 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988); S. Germaner and Z. Inankur, Orientalism and Turkey (Istanbul: Turkish Cultural Service Foundation, 1989); Roger Benjamin, Orientalism: Delacroix to Klee (Sydney: Art Gallery of New South Wales, 2003); M. Cezar, Sanatta Bati’ya Acilis ve Osman Hamdi (Osman Hamdi and the Opening of Art to the West) (Istanbul: Erol Kerim Aksoy Kultur, Egitim, Spor ve Saglik Vakfi Yayini, 1995). 26. John MacKenzie, Orientalism: History, Theory and the Arts (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995), 146–48; Metin And, Turkiye’de Italyan Sahnesi; Italyan Sahnesinde Turkiye (Istanbul: Metis Yayinlari, 1989), 156–59, 170–72. 27. B. J. Moore-Gilbert, Kipling and Orientalism (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1986). 28. M. M. Obeidat, American Literature and Orientalism (Berlin: Klaus Schwartz Verlag, 1998), 69. 29. B. Harlow and M. Carter, eds., Imperialism and Orientalism: A Documentary Sourcebook (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999), 390. 30. Osman Hamdi Bey and Marie de Launay, Yilinda Turkiye’de Halk Giysileri: Elbese-i Osmaniyye (Istanbul: Sabuncular Universitesi Yayinlar, 1873/1999). 31. MacKenzie, Orientalism, 72–75. 32. Owen Jones, The Grammar of Ornament: Illustrated by Examples from Various Styles of Ornament, One Hundred and Twelve Plates (London: Day and Son, 1856).

214

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

33. Christopher Dresser, Studies in Design (London: Cassell, Petter and Galpin, 1876). 34. MacKenzie, Orientalism, 128–29. 35. Y. K. Stillman, Arab Dress from the Dawn of Islam to Modern Times: A Short History (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 8. 36. Fangjun Ning, Costume in the U.S.-China Trade 1790–1840 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2006). 37. Pardoe, The Beauties of the Bosphorus; Isabel Burton, Inner Life of Syria, Palestine, and the Holy Land / from my private journal (London: H. S. King, 1875); Lady Anne Blunt and Wilfrid Scawen Blunt, Bedouin Tribes of the Euphrates (New York: Harper, 1891); Isabelle Bird Bishop, Journeys in Persia and Kurdistan . . . With Portrait, Maps and Illustrations (London: John Murray, 1879); Isabelle Bird Bishop, “A Pilgrimage to Sinai,” The Leisure Hour (1886). 38. B. Lewis, The Muslim Discovery of Europe (New York: W. W. Norton, 1982), 289. 39. Pardoe, The Beauties of the Bosphorus, 88–89, 100–1. 40. D. S. Macleod, “Cross-Cultural Cross Dressing: Class, Gender and Modernist Sexual Identity,” in Orientalism Transposed: The Impact of the Colonies on British Culture, ed. J. F. Codell and D. S. Macleod (Brookfield, VT: Ashgate, 1998). 41. S. L. Poole, The Englishwoman in Egypt; letters from Cairo, written during a residence there in 1842, 3 and 4 (Philadelphia: G. B. Zieber, 1845). 42. Macleod, “Cross-Cultural Cross Dressing,” 70. 43. Lady Hester Stanhope, Memoirs of the Lady Hester Stanhope, as related by herself in conversations with her physician (London: H. Colburn, 1846). 44. Macleod, “Cross-Cultural Cross Dressing,” 70. 45. A. Petrova, The Trousers—Fashion of the Past or Fashion of the Future: A Study of the Dress Reforms in the United States and in the Ottoman Empire in the 19th Century (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002), 4–6. 46. M. McAfee, Zouaves: The First and the Bravest (Gettysburg, PA: Thomas Publications, 1991), 9–42. 47. R. E. Koçu, Türk Giyim Kusam ve Süslenme Sözlügü (Dictionary of Turkish Dress and Accessories) (Ankara: Sumerbank, 1969); New Redhouse Turkish English/ English Turkish Dictionary (Istanbul: Redhouse, 1968). 48. D. Maglio, “Luxuriant Crowns: Victorian Men’s Smoking Caps, 1850– 1890,” Dress 27 (2000): 9–17. 49. Fanny Janet Blunt, The People of Turkey: Twenty Years Residence Among Bulgarians, Greek, Albanians, Turks, and Armenians, Volume 1 [[Please provide publisher information]], 246–47. 50. N. Micklewright, “Tracing the Transformation in Women’s Dress in Nineteenth-Century Istanbul,” Dress 13 (1987): 33–43. 51. Petrova, The Trousers, 16–20. 52. E. B. Frierson, “Cheap and Easy: The Creation of Consumer Culture in Late Ottoman Society,” in Consumption Studies and the History of the Ottoman Empire, 1550–1922, ed. D. Quataert (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000), 243–60. 53. Charlotte Jirousek, “From ‘Traditional’ to ‘Mass Fashion System’ Dress among Men in a Rural Turkish Village,” Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 15, no. 4 (1997): 203–15; Charlotte Jirousek, “The Transition to Mass Fashion System Dress in the Later Ottoman Empire,” in Consumption Studies and the History of the Ottoman Empire, 1550–1922, ed. D. Quataert (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000), 201–42.

The Nineteenth Century

215

Postscript The Decline of Empire and the Rise of Globalism

In the twentieth century, the Ottoman Empire fell. Its decline had been long and slow, accelerating in the late nineteenth century and culminating in a struggle for independence that finally ended in 1923. A series of treaties partitioned the former Ottoman Empire into a set of nations, many of which had never before existed within these modern borders, including Egypt, Greece, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, and the Republic of Turkey. Turkey was recognized by the Treaty of Lausanne as the independent successor state to the Ottoman Empire.1 The new Republic of Turkey was established under a constitution that separated religion and state. The models for the Turkish constitution, legal system, and educational system were European, and the new republic turned to the West as a model for the development and a restructuring of Turkish society. Turkey remained preoccupied with its internal reconstruction during the early part of the century, preferring neutrality, and was not at the forefront of Western attention.2 Even so, its strategic location made it a valued military partner for the West as the Cold War developed following World War II. Turkey was invited to become a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1952. However, since the last half of the twentieth century, relations between Turkey and the West have been uneven. Western powers have been ambivalent and inconsistent in their policies toward Turkey. And Turkish commitment to both Westernization and secularism has been challenged from within. Even so, Turkey remains the nation with a foot in Europe and a foot in Asia and strategically important as partner and intermediary on all sides.3 European interest in the Middle East would increasingly focus on the Arab regions of the former Ottoman Empire. In 1908, oil was discovered in Persia (now Iran) and shortly thereafter also in Saudi Arabia and Iraq. By the 1920s the question of a Jewish state in Palestine was gaining ground and, following World War II, the State of Israel was created by the United Nations. Between oil interests and the Palestine-Israel conflict, Western 216

attention shifted to the Arab world. Turkey and the Turks became relatively unknown to most Westerners for the first time since the Crusades. Two world wars accelerated the process of the globalization of economic systems, the dismantling of the European colonial empires, and the emergence of new independent nations in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the Americas, with renewed senses of cultural and religious identities. By the end of the twentieth century, China and India were major and growing forces in the world economy. Development and economic power were no longer entirely in the hands of the Euro-American economies.4 There was a growing international resistance to the notion that modernization of technology and infrastructure had to go hand in hand with Westernization of culture. As new emerging economies became more selfsustaining, there was a developing need to reconsider local culture and its values. The development and distribution of mass information and communications technologies brought about a further globalization of culture as well as economies. For much of the twentieth century, despite local revivals of traditional cultural values and dress, this globalization mostly seemed to facilitate exports of Western culture, consumer goods, and technology to the rest of the world. Those still left behind economically could see that they were missing out and resented the injustice. These tensions between ethnicity, race, nationalism, and globalism; between poverty and economic success and all that implies for the state of our planet; and the push/pull between traditional values and modern freedoms made the twentieth century a bumpy ride—one that is far from over. The purpose of this book is to reconsider the frame of reference through which we view the development of European and North American culture, particularly as expressed in dress. From the Crusades onward this required a Mediterranean frame of reference. By the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the field of vision had to be broader, and by the end of the twentieth century it had to encompass the whole world. And, as always, fashion reflects the political, economic, and cultural realities of the times.

Exoticism is at the core of fashion. Fashion is always about change, and borrowing from the other has always been a way to push the boundaries of fashion. This has been true whether fashion is simply reproducing the issues current in society or whether it is a form of revolutionary protest against the status quo. All aspects of social change have accelerated in the past century, and that acceleration has produced a greater need for and reliance on new and strange sources of ideas in fashion. To be sure, some of these new expressions of form have been generated from within societies. In the twentieth century, so much creativity emerged from the splintering subcultures of Western society once thought of as being outside fashion; much is borrowed from the shared European–North American past, as it always has been. The translation and reconstruction of forms can involve ideas transmitted across time or geography, but since fashion is a social construct, it is rare that any expression in dress comes entirely out of thin Postscript

Twentieth-Century Western Fashion and Exoticism

217

Figure P.1. “Almee in Schéhérazade” (from the Jerome Robbins Dance Division, New York Public Library for the Performing Arts, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations, “Color brochure for Metropolitan Musical Bureau NY”). This program was a picture album of the ballet distributed in New York City. These revolutionary designs by Leon Bakst were a direct influence on American and European imaginations.

218

air. Although dress is always an expression of self, it also reflects the times one lives in and the community and culture with which one identifies. As immigration increased, it was also true that non-Western concepts were available within societies. However, the human fascination with the world beyond local borders did not go away. Before and during World War  I, a well-known surge in exoticism in fashion was widely attributed to two sources. One was the arrival of the Ballet Russe in Paris with its opulently costumed ballets created around exotic themes of Asian, Muslim, and ancient origins (see fig. P.1). In this period the tightly corseted, long-skirted silhouette of women’s dress was abandoned for entirely different construction of garments based largely on exotic sources. Paul Poiret was always an innovative designer, and the visual magic of the Ballet Russe contributed to his radical reconfigurations of women’s dress. The new forms he created coincided with the increasingly flexible lifestyles of women in the dawn of the new industrial age. His new

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure P.2. “Dieu! Qu’il fait froid—manteau d’hiver de Paul Poiret,” 1913. Picture Collection, New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

Postscript

219

Figure P.3a. “United Artists. Rudolph Valentino in The Son of Sheik,” 1926. Billy Rose Theatre Division, New York Public Library for the Performing Arts, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

220

forms did not require a corset and most were less restrictive of movement. For sources of form, Poiret looked to modes of dress from many corners of the world, most notably Turkish and Russian traditional dress (see fig. P.2). Japanese and Chinese forms also entered his visual vocabulary. This design vision differed from the more limited, superficial features of arrangement, ornamentation, or materials that marked most exotic borrowings in the past. Poiret’s reconsideration of the basic vocabulary of Western dress forms would continue in the work of many designers, particularly throughout the first half of the twentieth century. The movement away from the corseted silhouette challenged designers to create new forms of dress that gave interest to the unfitted, essentially tubular form of the new styles. The untailored forms of Eastern dress provided a wealth of ideas that could now move toward a fundamentally new aesthetic of clothing construction. Not only stage but also the new medium of film became a source of exotic ideas. Early silent film portrayed Oriental settings of all kinds. Certain stars, such as Rudolph Valentino and Theda Bara, made their careers playing exotic roles that inspired popular fashion (see fig. P.3a and b). Not only film drama but also Oriental dance performance became sensations. Although early on these exotic strains were Middle Eastern, they were often derived from an imagined ancient Middle East inhabited by MesopoOttoman Dress and Design in the West

Figure P.3b. “Theda Bara,” undated. Billy Rose Theatre Division, New York Public Library for the Performing Arts, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

tamian kings, biblical figures, and Egyptian royalty. The sensational discovery of the tomb of King Tutankhamun in 1922 resulted in a mania for anything relating to Egypt, and the Egypt portrayed in film was a fantasy composed partly of ancient Egyptian imagery blended with large doses of standard Orientalist fantasy about the more recent Middle East. Other exotic sources also became important in this period, and by the end of the twenties, they surpassed Muslim ones. The kimono was adapted into the cut of fashionable dress, not seen merely as a dressing gown or evening coat as it had appeared in the previous century. This was particularly notable in the teens and twenties and would continue to affect fashion at intervals from that time on. The chinoiserie of the 1920s is well known and was a major feature of dress and design in that period. By this time quantities of goods were being imported from China, which was now accessible through the British colonies at Hong Kong, Canton, and Shanghai. Japan was still a new contact, but it was one that clearly had a profound influence in the new forms of art and design emerging in this new century. The hobble skirt, often accompanied by an obi-like sash and wrap front Postscript

221

Figure P.4. Princess Fawzia and Princess Faiza, sisters of King Farouk. Still number 25 from “King Farouk Opens Cairo Fair,” 1949, British Pathé.

bodice, clearly referred to forms of Japanese dress. Russian and European folk costume also inspired forms and embellishment of dress off and on throughout the century. However, Islamic touches in dress did continue to appear from time to time, usually in connection with a particular event or encounter. The beautiful and glamorous women of the Egyptian royal family were an international sensation, particularly Princess Fawzia. They were filmed and photographed in the 1940s wearing Western fashion, with hats instead of traditional veils, but their hats included veils that were wrapped around the head and neck, framing the face. Turbans and hats with similarly closewrapped drapery around face and neck were suddenly all the rage in the West (see fig. P.4). By this time tourism was a growing industry, and once the jet plane was established on international routes in 1960 the level of individual exposure to the world grew exponentially. In the 1960s the Beatles launched a virtual migration of the young to India, and many of these travelers went overland, passing through Turkey, Iran, and Afghanistan on the way. This introduced a considerable vogue for Muslim and Indian materials and forms in fashion. In the later twentieth century and beyond the diversity of sources from which Western fashion borrows became encyclopedic. Globalization of business and leisure took many abroad. People traveled to every corner of the world simply for the pleasure of doing so; a few had always done this but never so many or to such diverse and distant places. Those who couldn’t travel were still exposed daily to the ocean of visual media in which we all swim. 222

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

However, all of this borrowing of exotic forms by Western designers is not the most significant change in the twentieth century’s process of fashion creation. It is one thing for an outsider to admire and appropriate features of dress from the exotic other, a practice by now of long standing. But by the 1970s something else began to happen. All of this exchange of cultural information was available to anyone, anywhere in the world, who had the means, education, and interest to pay attention. As emerging economies began to interact with older industrialized nations on a more equal footing, this change in relationship and confidence was expressed by the emergence of designers raised and trained initially in their own culture but able to enter the world of Euro-American fashion as creators, reinterpreting the canon of Western fashion and incorporating elements of their own core culture. Those who had been objectified as exotic sources of novelty were now players in the game of fashion, expressing these exotic elements at a new level. All of these designers operated within the lexicon of Western fashion but brought to it fundamentally different conceptions of the relationship of body to clothes and of dress to identity. Among the first such designers was Hanae Mori, who established her first boutique in New York in 1965. In 1977 she became the first and only Japanese member of the Chambre Syndicale de la Haute Couture, the governing body of French fashion. Her success was matched by that of a number of brilliant Japanese designers, including Kenzo Takada, Issey Miyake, Rei Kawakubo, and Yohji Yamamoto. In the 1980s other designers from beyond Europe began to make their mark. Rıfat Özbek was born in Turkey and grew up in Istanbul. After finishing his education there, he came to London, where he discovered his interest in fashion and graduated from Central St. Martins School of Art in 1977. In 1984 founded his own company. His clientele has included a number of pop stars, and his design contains many references to Ottoman dress and design.5 Hussein Chalayan is a Cypriot Turk who graduated from the Maarif Koleji there before attending Central St. Martins in 1995. His graduate show was a sensation. At the age of twenty-five he was launched on the London fashion runway, funded by a prestigious award that permitted him to establish his own label. His work is abstract and concept centered, but his Turkish roots frequently inhabit both the forms and ideas he embodies in his work. Other leading fashion designers with non-European origins include Shirin Guild (Iran), Azzedine Alaia (Tunisia), and Vivienne Tam (Hong Kong). Fashion design schools have opened in many countries outside of Europe, creating a new generation of designers equipped to contribute to the international fashion scene. For the global Muslim world, Heather Marie Akou writes:

The Globalization of Fashion

Since the 1980s, a number of factors have contributed to increasing interaction between Muslims from different countries. Petrodollars pay for labor migration to the Middle East and fund scholarships for students from Africa and Southeast Asia to attend universities in Saudi Arabia. Satellite television stations like Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya—owned and Postscript

223

run by Muslims—offer an alternative to CNN and the BBC. Websites and online stores display Islamic fashions, but they also offer Muslims living in areas where they are not in a majority the chance to have the same kinds of clothing and dress practices as those who live in the Oar al-lslam (the Islamic world).6

At the end of the twentieth century it was still necessary for all designers, whatever their country of origin, to show on the runway during Fashion Week in at least one of the three fashion capitals—Paris, Milan, or New York—to be acknowledged as a world-class designer. But more recently, Fashion Week has become a phenomenon in a growing number of world capitals. Initially these events were primarily for domestic designers with a domestic audience. But then some of the established Euro-American designers began to bring their work to some of the largest of these shows to other locations, including India and Lebanon. The Beirut show includes designers and customers from most of the Arab world. More shows are scheduled every year in cities around the world. The explosive growth of these shows has provided a launch pad for regional designers, many of whom are also showing their designs in Paris, Milan, and New York. The trajectory of this growth of regional design would seem to suggest that in the course of time the globalization of the economy will also bring about a globalization of decision making and authority in fashion and design. The visual language of dress is becoming a world language, with a shared common vocabulary, though still with many local and communityspecific dialects. If fashion is a reflection of its times, then our current global fashion scene is telling us that culture is increasingly a shared construction in which a greater proportion of world cultures are active collaborators in its creation rather than merely raw materials to be used or ignored by an elite few. The question is whether the rich variety of these elements will be dissolved together into a more homogenous future or whether diversity will be valued, shared, and recombined into beautiful new forms.

Notes

1. D. Fromkin, A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East (New York: Henry Holt, 1989), 558–67. 2. Carter Vaughan Findley, Turkey, Islam, Nationalism, and Modernity (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010), 252–60, 276–78. 3. Ibid., 350–84. 4. A. Hourani, A History of the Arab Peoples (Cambridge: Belknap, 1991), 318; Fromkin, A Peace to End All Peace, 42–43, 91–93, 182–83. 5. Anne Stegemeyer, Who’s Who in Fashion, 3rd ed. (New York: Fairchild Books, 1996). 6. Heather Marie Akou, “Building a New ‘World Fashion’: Islamic Dress in the Twenty-First Century,” Fashion Theory: The Journal of Dress, Body and Culture 11, no. 4 (December 2007): 405.

224

Ottoman Dress and Design in the West

Glossary

armscye The armhole of a garment, the edge to which a sleeve may be attached. banyan A European man’s dressing gown. bliaud A long and long-sleeved medieval European garment with a fitted bodice. bloomers Nineteenth- and early twentieth-century women’s full trousers. börk The distinctive white felt headgear of the Ottoman Janissary elite military corp. brocade A rich fabric with a woven pattern. burqa A face-obscuring veil for women. See also chador. camlet A 100 percent mohair cloth from Anatolia. Later, sometimes blended with other fibers. capuchon A collared hood that developed a long tail (the liripipe) in the thirteenth century. cassock In this context, a seventeenth-century outer garment that buttons down the sides and has removable sleeves so it may be worn as a coat or as a cloak. chador A full length veil worn as a woman’s outermost garment in public. See also burqa. chinoiserie A style in fashion or other arts and design using Chinese design influences. cravat An early European necktie, part of the original three-piece suit ensemble. delly Flamboyant Turkish irregular soldiers on the Ottoman border.

225

entari fashion system of dress A modern system of dress defined by constant change and consumption. fez Nineteenth-century Ottoman brimless felt hats. flax A plant that produces the fibers used to make linen. fustian A blend of cotton weft and linen warp, or sometimes with a wool or silk warp. grogram A blend of silk and mohair, considered inferior to camlet. hotoz A tall Ottoman headdress. houppelande A European long pullover robe with full sleeves, fur lining, slit skirt, and dagged edges, worn belted. ih. rām Traditional unseamed garments worn by Muslims on pilgrimage to Mecca. justacorps A knee-length coat worn by European men in the second half of the seventeenth century. Landesknecht Flamboyant German mercenary soldiers Levant A historical term for the area of the eastern Mediterranean between Greece and Egypt. linen The fibers of the flax plant, used in textiles. liripipe The long hanging tail of a thirteenth-century capuchon (a collared hood). millet The officially defined minority religious communities of the Ottoman Empire. mohair The long silky hair of the Angora goat, native to Anatolia. Moor A member of a group of North African Arab people who ruled parts of Spain from the eighth century until 1492. mordant Any chemical used to fix a dye in fibers. Alum is one example. niqāb A veil for women that covers the lower half of the face. Orientalism Western perceptions, definitions, and representations of Eastern culture as other. Parthians The people of a historical region located in north-eastern Iran. Persia The ancient kingdom within modern day Iran. şalvar Baggy drop-crotch Turkish trousers worn by women and men. Saracen An obsolete medieval term used by Europeans to describe any Muslim regardless of ethnicity or nationality. Seljuks A tribe of central Asian Turks who established a powerful empire in Persia in the eleventh century. Ancestors of the modern Western Turks. sericulture The cultivation of silk. 226

Glossary

siglaton A silk fabric embellished with gold from Baghdad. silk A cultivated natural fiber spun by silkworms. sirwāl Loose long trousers. taç The distinctive tall thin red hat that was the base for sixteenth-century turbans worn by the Kizilbaş (Turkish for red head) of Western Iran. tippet Hanging lower sleeve that falls away at the elbow. Became fashionable in the fourteenth century. traditional dress Slowly changing forms of dress worn by a particular group defined by geography, ethnicity, gender, status, and community. thawb Arab men’s garment, loose and full length with long sleeves. tiraz Early Mediterranean decorated or inscribed textiles. turban A head cloth twisted and wrapped horizontally around and covering the head. turcha A long front-opening coat (Italian fifteenth century). turquerie A style in fashion or other arts and design using Turkish design influences. warp The foundation threads of a fabric, as strung on a loom. weft The threads woven across the warp of a fabric. wool The hair of sheep and other animals, used as a textile fiber.

Glossary

227

Index

Page numbers in italic indicate figures and plates. Abbasid Caliphate, 25, 46 Abdulaziz, Sultan, 200 Abdulmecid, Sultan, 194 aesthetic styles: Anatolian, 30; Arab dress, 31–32; Byzantine dress, 30; classical dress, 30, 31–32; cotton, 31–32; European dress, 30, 31–32, 187–88, 188; Far Eastern, xii, xiv, xv, 48, 49, 165–66, 198; Islamic dress, xiii, xiv, 1, 30, 32, 95; Japanese dress, xii, xiv, xv, 198, 201, 223; Moorish dress, xiv, 31–32, 97, 124; Persian dress, xiv, 97; silk, 31–32; Spanish, 80; Syria, 30; Western dress, 220. See also fashion system of dress; and specific aesthetic styles Ahmed II, Sultan, 140 Ahmed III, Sultan, 147, 152, 156 aigrette (tall stiff plume), 86, 172 Akou, Heather Marie, 223–24 Alaia, Azzedine, 223 Albert (Prince Consort of England), 187 Aleppo: cotton printing in, 160; European citizens in, 174; Janissaries in, 105; Seljuk Turks in, 25; trade in, 48, 92–93, 103, 115, 116, 117, 125, 156, 158–59, 160. See also Syria Alexandria, 4, 26, 48, 49, 93, 105, 116, 156 Alfonso the Wise of Castile, Book of Chess, 34 Algeria, 206, 206 “Almee in Schéhérazade” (artwork), 218 American Civil War, 194, 205 Amman, Jost, 96

Anatolia: as term of use, xiii; aesthetic style, 30; Islam in, 24; mohair, 118; Ottoman Empire, 41; oya lace, 19, 72–73; scarves, 71; Seljuk Turks in, 25, 27; trade in, 26–27, 118–19; tulips, 123; Turkish headgear, 19; Turks, 46–47 angarkha (front-opening coat or jacket), 23, 178 Anne (queen of Great Britain), 153 Arab dress: about, 7–12, 8, 9, 10, 11, 38n22; aesthetic style, 31–32; biblical dress, 9, 31–32; classical dress, 63; European dress, xiii, 4, 29, 30–31, 31; in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 44–45; headgear, 9–10, 10; hooded burnus, 8, 32–33, 34; ih.rām, 8, 8; imāma, 9–10, 10; izâr, 8, 10; jallâba, 8; Muhammad (Prophet) era, 12; Ottoman Turks, 11; in paintings, 53; from Persia, 12; ridâ´, 8; sirwāl (loose trousers), 12; tiraz, 30, 31; tunic, 8–9, 9, 10, 11, 12, 201; turban, 61; veils, 10, 11, 11. See also Arabs and Arab culture Arabian Peninsula. See Saudi Arabia Arabic language: about, 25, 28; Arabic studies and translations, 28, 32, 94, 161; kufic or Arabic script, 30–31, 31; tiraz inscriptions, 9, 11, 30, 31, 31, 35 Arabs and Arab culture: aesthetic style, xiv; Arab, as term of use, 24–25, 96–97; Arab Uprising in 1881–1882, 194; classical culture,

229

28, 160; Europe in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 44–45; fashion shows and, 224; in Istanbul, 48; Muslims as, xiii; in North Africa, 7, 23; Ottoman Empire and, 194, 195; travelers/travel writings and, 195. See also Arab dress Archaeology Museum, Istanbul, 197, 200 architectural features: China/Chinese culture, 166, 200; classical culture, 30, 123, 166; Greek, 123; Indian, 200; Islamic, ix, 166, 200; Italian, 51–52; Mediterranean, 45, 52; Orientalist, xv, 200; Ottoman, 200; Roman, 123 Ardasse (coarse silk), 117 Armenians, ix, 48, 84–85, 116, 118, 119, 123–24 armscye (armhole), 13, 55, 56, 57, 86 Arnoult, Nicolas: Dressing à la Sultane, Lady of Quality Dressed en Sultane, 138; Femme de qualité en habit d’esté, d’étoffe siamois, 139; Le Jeu de Dez, 111 Arts and Crafts movement, 200–201 Asia: ballet themes, 218, 218; cotton, 194; feltmaking, 27; globalism and, 223; music, 163–64; Orientalist studies, xv; the plague (Black death), 46; Republic of Turkey and, 218; trade and, 92, 109, 194. See also Central Asian dress; and specific countries Asme Sultane, 192 Atasoy, Nurhan, 81 Austria: diplomacy, 13, 128; Hapsburgs, vii, viii, 92, 114, 116; military bands, 96; military dress, 102, 131–32, 132; Ottoman dress in portraiture, 97, 100; Ottoman Empire, 113; power of, viii, 80, 90, 113, 128, 154, 193; wars, 102, 114, 131–32 Ayyubid dynasty, 30 Baghdad, 25, 26, 27, 31, 61. See also Iraq Bakst, Leon, 218 Balachand, Jahangir and His Father Akbar, 22, 23 Balkans: Byzantine Empire, 24; in Italy, 118; Ottoman Empire, 47, 48, 75, 93, 94, 154; oya lace, 72–73; power in, 194; trade and, 159; Turkish dress, 102 ballet, 119, 119, 165, 165, 218, 218 The Ballet of the Turkish Ladies (ballet), 119 Ballet Russe, 218, 218 230

Index

banyans (dressing gowns), 129, 131, 137, 145n74, 178, 180. See also dressing gowns Bara, Theda, 220, 221 Barbarossa of Algiers, Khaireddin, 89 Baroque, 110, 111, 133, 148–49, 163, 169, 173 Bartlett, W. B., 195 Bartolemeo di Pezzana, 83, 96 Bassano, Luigi, 106n5 Beatles, 222 Beckford, William, Vathek, 161 Bedouin: Arab as term of use for, 7, 96–97; dress of, 7–8, 9–10, 10 Bellini, Gentile, 52, 52, 64, 68–69, 71, 122 Bey, Mehmed Riza, 182n7 Bey, Osman Hamdi, 197, 200 Beyazid II, Sultan, 48, 52, 56, 65, 89, 91, 119, 165 biblical dress: bliaud (overgarment), 31; classical dress, 6, 63; Middle Eastern dress, 9, 31, 31–32, 53, 53–54, 63, 65, 66, 67, 95, 96, 173–74; robe à la Lévite, 173–74, 174 biblical period, and dance performances, 220–21 bicorne headgear, 67, 67, 68, 69–70 Bidlisi, Şükri, The Ottoman Army drawn up for Battle with the Safavids, 17 Bishop, Isabella Bird, 202 Bizet, Georges: Djamileh, 197–98; Fishers, 197; La Guzla de L’Emir, 197; Ivan IV, 197–98; The Pearl, 197 Black Death, 46 bliaud (overgarment), 30, 31 Bloomer, Amelia Jenks, 204–5, 204–5 bloomer costume, 204–5, 204–6, 205 Blount, Henry, 124–25 Blunt, Anne, 202 Blunt, Fanny Janet, 203, 211 Boissard, Jacques, 96 Bonnart, Nicolas: Dame de qualité vestue à la sultane, 139; La Grande Sultane, 140; Homme en Robe de Chambre, in Recueil des modes de la cour de France, 129 börk (Janissaries headgear), 14, 53, 64, 70, 87, 104–5, 105 Bounin, Gabriel, 95–96 bourellet (two-horned headdress), 63–64, 66–67, 101 Boyle, Roger, Earl of Orrery, 84–85, 134–35 braid trim: Central Asian dress, 59; dolman, 209; European dress in sixteenth century, 82–83, 86, 97, 99, 100,

100, 111; Levant dress, 206; military dress, 86, 100, 100, 102, 132, 133, 206, 208; North Africa, 206; official dress, 12, 86, 100, 100, 102, 132, 193, 206, 208; Ottoman dress in nineteenth century, 206; Ottoman dress in sixteenth century, 96, 97, 100; robe à la sultane, 138; sleeve, 101, 102; soutache, 206, 206; Turkish dress, 82–83, 97 Braudel, Fernand, xi–xii Breydenbach, Bernhard von, Peregrinatio in Terram Sanctam, 51, 51, 69 Brighton Pavilion, 200 brocade, 6, 66, 83, 112, 115, 117, 153, 180 Burghley, Lord, 93 Burgundy, xiv, 41–42, 69, 70, 89, 101–2 burqa, 10–11, 38n22. See also niqāb Burton, Isabel, 202 bustle, 190, 205, 206, 209, 210 buttons: Central Asian dress, 34; European dress in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 49, 54, 58; European dress in pre-Ottoman era, 34, 34; Islamic dress, 34; Middle Eastern dress, 34; Moorish dress, 34; sumptuary law, 54; Turkish dress, 54 Byron, George Gordon, 196 Byzantine dress: aesthetic style, 30; patterned textiles, 29; scaramagnon, 30; tiraz, 30 Byzantine Empire: Byzantium as cultural center, 1, 23, 24, 27, 45, 46; East and West distinctions, 1; Ottoman Empire, 41; political and cultural center shift, 1, 23; Seljuk, 24; textile technologies, 51; trade and, 24, 27 Byzantium. See Istanbul caban (front-opening coat), 54 Cairo, 61, 93, 203, 222. See also Egypt Callet, Antoine-François (studio), Marie Thérèse Louise de Savoie-Carignan, Princesse de Lamballe, 150 Callot, Jacques: “Map of the Siege of Breda,” 131; Solimano, 120 camisia (tunic), 8 camlets, 49–50, 50, 78n24, 93, 118, 143n33 Campbell, Lady Archibald, 204 Campin, Robert, Portrait of a Man and a Woman, 63 Canavasso, Vittorio Amadeo, Il Beraim, o sia Il Carnavale turco (The Bayram–A Turkish Carnival), 165 cantinières or vivandières (women’s auxiliaries in the military), 205, 205

Canton, 158, 159, 221 caps: red caps (kavuk, serpuş, fes), 116, 159, 191; tekke (small cap), 211, 212–13. See also fez; headgear capuchon (hood), 43, 59, 60, 63 Caribbean Islands, 118, 148, 154, 160 Carpaccio, Vittore, 53, 55, 64 carpets: Anatolian, 118; Oriental, 200; Turkish, 49, 80, 93, 97, 99 cassock, 124, 130, 134 Catholics, 24, 48, 89, 113–14, 116, 118, 125. See also specific popes Cecil, William, 1st Baron Burghley, 102 Celebi, Evliya, 118 Central Asian dress: about, 7, 17; armscye, 13; buttons, 34; coats, 13, 13, 14, 18, 21, 21, 22, 22–23, 23, 34, 55, 59, 130–31; dolman, 13; fashion system of dress and, 179; headgear, 17, 18, 59; layering of garments, 13, 21, 21, 55, 56, 130–31; plume, 102; şalvar (loose trousers), 21; sleeves, 13, 18, 21, 55; striped textiles, 29, 176; Turko-Mongol dress, 23, 179 Central Asians and culture: trade with, 26, 27, 92; tulips, 123; Turks/Turkish culture, 12, 13, 13, 17, 18, 21, 21 chador, 38n22 Chalayan, Hussein, 223 Chambre Syndicale de la Haute Couture, 223 chaperon, 59, 60, 61, 62, 62, 64, 69–70, 75, 76 Charlemagne, 24 Charles II (king of England), 110, 120, 134–35 Charles IX (king of France), 91 Charles V (Holy Roman Emperor), 42–43, 80, 89, 90, 92 Charles VI (king of France), 42–43 Chartres Cathedral, figures at western entrance of, 6 Cherubini, Luigi, Ali Baba, 197 China and Chinese culture: aesthetic style, xii, xiv; architectural features, 166, 200; Arts and Crafts movement, 201; Canton, 158, 159, 221; chinoiserie, xv, 146, 177, 200, 221; the exotic, 158; globalism, 216; historical context, 192; the plague (Black death), 46; silk, 158, 159; textiles, 140, 141, 201; trade with, 156, 157, 158, 186 Chinese dress, 148, 177, 200, 221; dressing gowns, 130; fashion system of dress and, 201, 202, 220; headgear, 16; striped textiles, 176; vest, 130 Index

231

chinoiserie, xv, 146, 177, 200, 221 choli (tunic), 23 Christian population and Christianity: antichrist, 27, 68, 94; conversion, 203; in Europe, 6, 23, 25, 29; headgear, 18; Islam versus, ix, xii, 23, 24, 25, 27, 47, 203, 205; Levant, 24; Middle East, 7, 24; mixed marriages, 119, 125–26, 126, 127; in Ottoman Empire, viii, ix, xiii, 118 Circassienne, 173, 173, 176, 177 classical culture: Arabs/Arab culture, 28, 160; architectural features, 30, 123, 166; Europe in sixteenth century, 62–63, 94–95; Greek, xv, 28, 51, 123, 160; Roman, 11, 28, 160 classical dress: about, 4; aesthetic style, 30, 31–32; Arab dress, 63; biblical dress, 6, 63; East and West distinctions in, 1; European dress, 3–4, 6, 62–63; Greek, 8, 123; headgear, 18; Holy Land, 123; Islamic dress, 30, 95; in Orientalist studies, xv; Roman, 3–4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 30, 31–32, 62–63, 123, 124; tunic, 8, 201 coats: angarkha, 23, 178; caban, 54; cassock, 124, 130, 134; Central Asian dress, 13, 14, 21, 21, 22, 23, 34, 55, 59, 130–31; European dress in eighteenth century, 177–78; European dress in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 133, 133–34; European dress in nineteenth century, 207; European dress in seventeenth century, 133, 133–34; European dress in sixteenth century, 97, 98, 98–99, 100, 101, 101, 102, 170; French dress, 54; Indian dress, 130–31, 177–78, 178, 178–79, 179; Islamic dress, 20, 130–31; Italian dress, 54, 55; jama, 23, 177–78, 178, 178–79, 179; manteaus (informal coats), 129, 136, 137, 137–39, 139, 171; military dress, 66, 133, 133–34, 207; Ottoman dress, 130–31, 170; oya lace, 72; Persia dress, 21, 21, 23, 130–31; surcoat, 32, 34; turcha, 54, 55, 97, 98; Turkish dress, 12–15, 14, 15, 18, 20, 23, 44–45, 97, 206; undercoats, 12–13, 32, 84, 133. See also kaftan (coats); layering of garments; sleeves Cochin, Charles-Nicolas, Decoration du Bal Masqué—Donné par le Roy, 156 coiffures, 170, 175, 179–80, 181 Cold War, 216

232

Index

commedia dell’arte, 54, 120–21 Constantintinople. See Istanbul consumption system: Crusades, 28; Europe in eighteenth century, 146, 153, 156, 158, 182; Europe in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 41; Europe in nineteenth century, 186, 198, 200; fashion system of dress and, xiv, 3, 201; Ottoman Empire in eighteenth century, 146, 182; Ottoman Empire in nineteenth century, 213; Ottoman Empire in seventeenth century, 112; in US, 213; Western culture and, 217 conversion: Christian, 203; to Islam, iv, viii, 15, 16, 23, 25, 47, 58, 114, 119, 124 Copley, John Singleton, Mrs. Thomas Gage, 146, 148 Cornu, Paul, 171, 184n48 Coryate, Thomas, 115, 124, 128 costume books, 69, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 96, 103, 104, 106n5, 141 cotton: aesthetic style, 31–32; Aleppo, 160; Europe, 148, 149, 151, 160; fashion system of dress and, 149, 151; fustian cloth, 4; Indian, 116–17, 130, 148, 149, 156, 160, 177, 194; Ottoman, 160; Persia, 49; Turks, 49; from US, 148, 194; West Indian, 118, 148, 160 couture, 186–87, 223. See also fashion system of dress cravat, 133, 135–36 Crimea, 46, 48, 50, 54–55, 154, 206 Crimean War, 206, 214n13 Croatian military dress, 135 Crusades: about, 24, 25, 45–46, 48; consumption system during, 28; the East as perceived in, 26, 27; European dress, 4, 32, 42–43, 42–43; Levant, 26, 27; religious dress, 35, 37, 42–43; silk during, 7; tiraz, 31; Turks/ Turkish culture during, 216–17; undercoats, 32 Da Gama, Vasco, 50 Damascus, 25, 198. See also Syria Davenant, William, The Siege of Rhodes, 122, 134 De Blois, Charles, pourpoint of, 49, 54 De Busbecq, Ogier Ghiselin, 13–14, 88–89, 102, 106n5, 123 décolletage, 151, 153, 179, 181 De Joinville, Jean, 8, 9 Delacroix, Eugène, 197 Delibes, Léo, Lakhme, 198

delly, 102–3, 104 Dernschwam, Hans, 106n5 Deshayes, Louis, Baron de Courmenin, 117 Detail of John IV, Duke of Brabant (follower of Rogier van der Weyden), 76 De Troy, Jean Fançoise, 165 Deutsch, Ludwig, 197 d’Herbelot, Barthélemy, Bibliothèque orientale, 119 Dintville, Jean de, 98–99 d’Ohsson, Mouradgea, 162 dolman: Central Asian dress, 13; European dress in nineteenth century, 209, 210, 211; Ottoman dress, 207–8; Turkish dress, 12, 207, 208. See also coats; sleeves double-breasted dress, 135, 177–78 dress, xi–xii, xiii, xiv–xv, 1–2, 217, 218. See also aesthetic styles; fashion system of dress; and specific continent; country; cultures Dresser, Christopher, 201 dressing gowns: banyans, 129, 131, 137, 145n74, 178, 180; in Britain, 136, 137, 145n74; Chinese dress, 130; European dress in eighteenth century, 148–49, 170, 171, 178–79, 180; European dress in nineteenth century, 211; European dress in seventeenth century, 129, 129; in France, 145n74; Indian dress, 130, 145n74, 178; Japanese dress, 130, 145n74, 221; silk, 129 Druze headgear, 18, 68, 198, 198 dulband (“turban”), 9–10. See also turban Dunton, John, 138 Dupin, Nicholas (after Pierre Thomas Le clerc), 172 Dupin, Nicholas, “Robe à la Levantine,” 175 Dürer, Albrecht, 53, 53–54, 95 the East: dress in eighteenth century, 174, 175, 177; dress in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 43; dress in nineteenth century, 136, 207, 212–13; dress in seventeenth century, 122, 122–23, 124, 132–33, 133, 134, 135–36, 206; dress in twentieth century, 220; the exotic, 207; feltmaking, 58; patterned silks from, 28, 55; textile trade from, 158, 158; three-piece suit, 136, 211, 212–13; the West versus, 1, 27–29, 50–51, 51, 69

Eastern dress, in seventeenth century: bustle, 206; cravat, 135–36; fur, 132–33; layering of garments, 135; in Levant, 124, 135, 136; in paintings, 122, 122–23; traveler guides’ dress, 124; vest, 133, 134, 135; women, 136. See also the East Eastern Question, 193, 194 East India Company, British, 93, 116–17, 153, 158, 162 East India Company, Dutch, 145n74 edgings: European dress in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 43, 44, 60, 69–73, 72, 73, 75, 75–77, 76; European dress in nineteenth century, 187; headgear, 69–70, 73, 74, 75, 76–77; igne oya lace, 69–71, 73; oya lace, 19, 60, 72–73, 74, 75, 76, 187 Edward III (king of England), 54 Edward Wortley Montagu, 162 Efendi, Yirmisekiz Celebi Mehmed, 154, 166 Efendi, Yirmisekizzade Celebi Mehmed Said, 154, 166 Egypt: Bedouin dress, 8; Britain and, 193, 193, 194; Cairo, 61, 93, 203, 222; dance performances and, 220–21; fashion system of dress, 216, 220–21, 222, 222; fez, 191; films and, 221; France and, 155, 193, 195, 198, 201; headgear, 18, 191, 193, 222, 222; Islamic dress, 222, 222; Islam in, 23; literature, 198; Mamluk, 41, 53, 57–58, 64; military dress, 12, 193; missionary schools in, 197; official dress, 12, 193; Ottoman Empire and, 89, 193; statehood, 216; Suez Canal, vii, 193, 193, 194, 206; trade with, 26–27, 49, 93, 159; turban, 222, 222; women’s rights in, 203 Elizabeth I (queen of England), 80, 93, 94, 100, 100 Elizabeth of York (queen of England), 80 Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 198 England. See Great Britain the Enlightenment, 153–54, 160–61, 177, 179 entari (kaftan), 13, 153, 157, 179, 181, 182, 212–13. See also kaftan (coats) erotic fantasies, 161–62, 166, 167, 168, 202 Eugenie (empress), 186–87 Europe: dress history perspective in, xi, xiv, 217; Islamic dress in, xiv

Index

233

Europe, in eighteenth century: about, 146, 148; consumption system in, 146, 153, 156, 158; cultural exchange of ideas with, 154, 160–66, 161; erotic fantasies and, 161–62, 166, 167, 168; the exotic, 163, 168, 179; historical context, 153–56, 155, 156; literature, 160–61, 165–66, 183n29; music, 163–64, 165, 165–66; power of, 153–54, 155, 155; silk in, 158–59; theatrical performances, 163–66, 165, 168, 185n48; tourists from, 166; trade with, 156–60, 157, 159, 159–60, 183n26; travelers/travel writings, 161–63, 162, 167, 169, 181, 184n47, 202; wars, 154; women’s rights in, 168–69, 169, 171; women travelers from, 161–62, 162, 163, 167, 169, 181, 184n47, 202 Europe, in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: Arabs/Arab culture and, 44–45; Christian Europe, 29; consumption system in, 41; cultural exchange of ideas with, 46, 50–54, 52, 53; dress for travelers from, 71; feudalism in, 41, 46; historical context, 45–48; kaftan style, 54, 57, 58; military dress, 132, 133; Moors and, 44–45; morals, 66–68, 69–70, 73; poulaines (long pointed shoes), 42– 43, 43, 68; pourpoint, 42, 42–43, 49, 54, 57; roundlets, 59, 62–63, 66, 75; scarves, 19, 69, 70, 71–72, 74, 75; silk in, 49, 49; sleeves, 55, 56, 57, 57, 58; “sugarloaf” hats, 68, 69, 70; tippets, 54, 58, 66; trade with, 46, 48–50, 49; travel writings, 50–51, 71; tunic, 2; turban, 44–45, 58–59, 60, 61, 61–63, 62, 63, 64–65, 65; Turks/Turkish culture, 44–45, 44–45, 46 Europe, in nineteenth century: about, 186; architectural features, 200; architectural features in, 200; consumption system and, 186, 198, 200, 213; cultural exchange of ideas with, 195–98, 198–99, 200–201; diplomacy, 197; Eastern Question, 193, 194; erotic fantasies and, 202; the exotic, 197, 200, 201, 207, 211, 212; historical context, 192–94; industrial system in, 194, 200–201; Islamic culture and, 201; literature, 165–66, 198; music, 197–98; neoclassical style, 201; operas, 197–98; Orientalism in, 200; painters/paintings in, 197; power of, 192, 193, 213; ready-to-wear apparel, 187; Romanticism, 179, 198; Suez Ca234

Index

nal, vii, 193, 193, 194, 206; theatrical performances, 197–98; tourists from, 186, 195; trade with, 194–95; travelers/travel writings and, 186, 195–96, 197, 200, 202, 203, 204; wars and, vii, 195, 218; women’s rights in, 189, 202; women travelers from, 202 Europe, in pre-Ottoman era: Christian Europe, 6, 23, 25; feudalism in, 24; linen, 4, 26; Medieval period context, 23–24; prestige, 15–16; sumptuary law, 29, 29, 54, 176–77; trade with, 26–27; tunic, 2, 4 Europe, in seventeenth century: about, 109; ballet, 119; consumption system in, 112; cultural exchange of ideas with, 118–23; diplomacy, 123, 124, 125–29, 128, 135; dress for travelers from, 124–25, 129; historical context, 113–14; literature, 118, 119; mixed marriages, 125–26, 126, 127; music, 120, 121–22, 134; theatrical performances, 118, 119–21, 120, 134, 141; tourists from, 115; trade with, 114–18, 123, 124, 126, 129, 135, 143n33; travel writings, 115, 120, 122, 130, 132–33, 134, 135, 144n43; tulips, 123, 144n53; wars, 114, 120; women travelers from, 125–26, 126, 127 Europe, in sixteenth century: classical culture, 62–63, 94–95; cultural exchange of ideas with, 93–97, 95; dress for travelers from, 88; Mannerist style, 79, 80, 97; Reformation, 89, 110; sumptuary law, 85–86; theatrical performances, 95–96; trade with, 69, 92–93, 201; travel writings, 69, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88–89, 96, 106n5, 108n47, 141; Turks/Turkish culture, 94–95, 96; wars, 90–91, 102 Europe, in twentieth century: Arabs/ Arab culture in Middle East, 216–17; Cold War and, 216; Republic of Turkey and, 218; Turks/Turkish culture, 216–17; wars, vii, 195, 217, 218. See also Crusades; and specific countries European dress, in eighteenth century: bustle, 190, 205, 206; Chinese dress, 148, 177; chinoiserie, 146; Circassienne, 173, 173, 176, 177; coats, 177–78; coiffures, 170, 175, 179–80, 181; cotton, 149; décolletage, 179, 181; doublebreasted dress, 177–78; dressing gowns, 148–49, 170, 171, 178–79, 180; the exotic, 149, 156, 159–60, 163, 181; fashion system of dress and, 141, 146,

148, 148–50, 149, 150, 151, 154, 171, 206; 211, 211; Indian dress, 201–2; Islamic fur, 172, 173, 181; headgear, 156, 159, dress, 202, 212; jackets, 207, 211; 172, 175, 175–76, 177, 179–81, 180, 181; Kashmiri shawls, 201, 202; layerinformal wear, 149, 170, 171; justauing of garments, 190, 206, 209, 210, corps, 149, 150; layering of garments, 211; mass fashion system of dress 175; linen, 149; men, 149, 150, 159, 165, and, 195; men, 187, 188–89, 211, 211; 167, 172, 177–79, 178–79, 180, 180–81, neoclassical style, 201; in Ottoman 182; Ottoman dress, xii, 166, 167; patEmpire, 186, 190–91, 191; oya lace, terned textiles, 177, 178; polonaise, 187; prestige, 190; silk, 194; sultan’s 172, 173, 174, 176, 177; portraiture, 162, dress, 191; three-piece suit, 136, 207; 163, 166, 167, 168, 169, 171, 179, 184n47; turbans, 201; Turkish dress, 202, robe à la francaise, 148–49, 149, 171; 204, 205, 212–13; turquerie, 187, 206; robe à la turque, 169, 174–76, 176, 177, women, 186–89, 188, 189, 190, 209, 177; scarves, 175–76, 176; silk, 149, 157; 210, 211, 212–13; women’s rights and, striped textiles, 149, 176–77, 178; tur169, 171, 189, 202, 204–5, 204–6, 205; ban, 156, 172, 175, 179–80, 180; Turkish Zouave uniform style, 206, 206, dress, 148, 153, 162, 166–69, 167, 168, 207, 208 169, 170, 171, 184n47, 206; turquerie, European dress, in seventeenth cen162, 165, 166, 170, 171, 173, 175, 184n48; tury: about, 110, 110–12; banyans wigs, 149, 180; women, 148, 149, 150, (dressing gowns), 129, 129, 129–31, 150, 162, 164, 165, 167, 168, 169, 170, 137, 145n74; bustle, 206; characteris172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 178, 178–82, 181; tics of, 109; coats, 133, 133–34; cravat, wool, 149, 159 135–36; diplomatic gifts, 126–27, 128; European dress, in fourteenth and fifthe exotic, 137, 141–42, 171; fashion teenth centuries: about, 41–44; armsystem of dress and, 110, 110, 111–12, scye, 55, 56, 57; bicorne, 67, 67, 68, 206; fur, 115, 134, 134, 136, 138; head69–70; buttons, 49, 54, 58; capuchon, gear, 111; informal wear, 129, 136, 137, 43, 59, 60, 63; chaperon, 59, 59, 60, 61, 137–39, 139; justaucorps, 111; layer62, 62, 64, 69–70, 75, 76; coats, 133, ing of garments, 134, 135, 139, 139; 133–34; Crusades, 42–43, 42–43; edgMannerist style, 110, 110; manteaus ings, 43, 44, 60, 69–73, 72, 73, 75, 75– (informal coats), 129, 136, 137, 137–39, 77, 76; fashion system of dress and, 139; mass fashion system of dress 41–42, 44, 44; felt and feltmaking, 58, and, 111; military dress, 130, 131, 64; fur, 43, 49, 54, 70, 76; headgear, 131–34, 132; morals, 134; official dress, 44, 44, 44–45, 57–59, 60, 61, 61–64, 124; Persian dress, 126, 126, 129, 135; 62, 63, 64–65, 65, 66–71, 67, 68, 69–70; portraiture, 115, 115, 128, 129–30, 136, hennin, 21, 68, 68–69, 70, 71; lace 137; prestige, 131; robe à la sultane, edging, 60, 69–73, 72, 73, 75, 75–77, 138, 138–39, 139, 140, 140–42, 141, 171, 76; layering of garments, 43; morals, 173; robe à la turque, 138, 139; striped 66–68, 69–70, 73; Ottoman dress, 71; textiles, 139, 139, 140; structural oya lace, 60, 76; portraiture, 66, 68– form, 110, 110; three-piece suit, 133, 69, 69, 69, 70, 73, 75; religious dress, 133, 134–36, 144n43; turquerie, 146, 42–43; structural form, 41–43, 42–43, 148, 162, 166; vest, 120, 133, 133, 134, 49; turcha, 54, 55; wool, 49 135, 136, 137–38, 144n43; wigs, 111; European dress, in nineteenth century: women, 136, 136–38, 137, 138, 139, 140, aesthetic style, 187–88, 188; bloomer 141; wool, 115–16 costume, 204–5, 204–6, 205; bustle, European dress, in sixteenth century: 206, 209, 210; Chinese dress, 201, armscye, 86; braid trim, 82–83, 86, 202; chinoiserie, 200; classical dress, 97, 99, 100, 100, 111; coats, 97, 98, 201; coats, 207; consumption system, 98–99, 100, 101, 101, 102, 170; fashion 201; cotton, 194; dolman, 209, 210, system of dress and, 79–81, 80, 80–81, 211; dressing gowns, 211; erotic fan82–83, 83, 83; felt and feltmaking, tasies and, 202; the exotic, 201, 211; 86; fur, 82, 83, 83, 98, 99; headgear, fashion system of dress and, 201–9, 101–2, 102, 103, 104, 105; kaftan style, 204–5, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 211, 83, 86, 87; layering of garments, 97, 211–13; fur, 208, 209, 211; headgear, 98; official dress, 100, 100; Ottoman Index

235

dress, 88, 97, 100; plume, 86, 103; portraiture, 97, 99, 100; roundlet, 101; scarves, 84; sleeves, 80, 80–81, 98, 98–99, 101, 101, 102; striped textiles, 140; structural form, 79–80, 80, 80–81; turcha, 97, 98; Turkish dress, 81, 88, 97, 99, 100, 105n2, 123, 124; undercoats, 84; wool, 93 European dress, in twentieth century: chinoiserie, 221; fashion system of dress and, 213, 217; traditional dress/ culture in, 222 European dress, pre-Ottoman era: about, 2; aesthetic style, 30, 31–32; Arab dress, 4, 29, 30–31, 31; buttons, 34, 34; classical dress, 3–4, 6; Crusades, 4, 32; east-west trade, 4; headgear, 34, 35, 36–37, 37; Islamic dress, 32; layering of garments, 32; Medieval period, 3–4, 5; Moorish dress, 29, 30; patterned textiles, 29, 29; pre-Ottoman era, 5, 6, 7, 23–24; religious dress, 32, 34, 35, 37; scholarly dress, 32, 32–33, 34; silk, 3, 4, 6, 7, 26; sleeves, 4, 12–13, 14, 15, 18, 21, 32, 32–33, 43; striped textiles, 29, 29; tiraz, 30, 30–31, 31; undercoats, 32; veils, 35, 37; wool, 27 Evelyn, John, 120, 123–24, 130, 132–33, 134, 144n43 exhibition and world’s fair, 198, 198–99, 200 the exotic: ballet, 119, 218, 218; China/ Chinese culture, 158; European dress in eighteenth century, 149, 156, 159–60, 163, 181; European dress in nineteenth century, 201, 211; European dress in seventeenth century, 137, 141–42, 171; Europe in eighteenth century, 163, 168, 179; Europe in nineteenth century, 197, 200, 201, 207, 211, 212; fashion system of dress and, xiv, xv, 3, 29, 79, 95, 97, 103, 179, 217, 218, 218, 220, 223; films and, 220, 220, 221, 221; Great Britain, 158, 158; headgear, 59, 59, 73, 123, 124; India/ Indian culture, 158, 160; Islamic culture, 24, 122; Ottoman dress in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 55; Ottoman dress in seventeenth century, 119, 130; Ottoman dress in sixteenth century, 103; Ottoman Empire in nineteenth century, 196–97; theatrical performances, 95; travelers/travel writings, 51, 115;

236

Index

Turks/Turkish culture, 119, 166; US, 166, 201, 211, 212 Eyüp ve Salman Genç Hükumdarin Huzurunda, Külliyat, 64 Faiza, Princess, 222 Far East: aesthetic style from, xii, xv, 48, 49, 165–66, 198; cultural exchange of ideas with, 198; historical context in nineteenth century, 194; literature and, 198; operas and, 165–66, 197–98; theatrical performances and, 165–66, 197–98; trade with, 48, 146 fashion system of dress: Chinese dress, 148, 177, 200, 220; Circassienne, 173, 173, 176, 177; consumption system and, xiv, 3, 201; couture, 186–87, 223; Egypt dress, 216, 220–21, 222, 222; erotic fantasies and, 202; European dress in eighteenth century, 141, 146, 148, 148–50, 149, 150, 151, 154, 171, 206; European dress in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 41–42, 41–43, 42, 42–43, 44, 49, 54; European dress in nineteenth century, 201–9; European dress in seventeenth century, 110, 110, 111–12, 206; European dress in sixteenth century, 79–81, 80, 80–81, 82–83, 83, 83; European dress in twentieth century, 213–14, 217; the exotic, xiv, xv, 3, 29, 79, 95, 97, 103, 179, 217, 218, 218, 220, 223; French dress, 41–42, 223; globalism and, 223–24; Great Britain, 79, 110, 149, 223; Indian dress, 146, 201–2, 222; Iran and, 223; Islamic dress, 2, 157, 159, 202, 222, 222; Islamic dress and, 224; Japanese dress, 201, 202, 221–22, 223; linen, 149, 151; mass fashion system of dress and, xiv–xv, 2–3, 111, 192, 195, 213; neoclassical style, 201; Orientalism in, 28–29, 179; Ottoman dress in twentieth century, 213; Persian dress, 97, 223; polonaise, 172, 173, 174, 176, 177; prestige, 3, 15–16, 131, 190; in Republic of Turkey, 223; robe à la francaise, 148–49, 149, 171; robe à la Lévite, 173–74, 174; robe à la sultane, 138–39, 139, 140, 140, 140–42, 141, 171, 173; Russia, 97, 219, 220; striped textiles, 140; structural form, 41–43, 42, 42–43, 49, 54, 79–80, 80, 80–81, 110, 110; Tunisia and, 223; Turkish dress, 79, 79, 148, 202, 219,

220; in US, 201; in Western culture, 201, 204, 217–18, 220, 222, 222; wool, 149, 151; Zouave uniform style, 206, 206, 207, 208. See also aesthetic styles; mass fashion system of dress; and specific aesthetic styles Fatimid dynasty, 30 Favart, Justine, 164, 165 Fawzia, Princess, 222 feathers. See plume felt and feltmaking, 14, 27, 58, 64, 86, 104, 104 ferengi (“Franks”) as term of use, 159 Ferrara, Constanzo de, 52–53 fes or kavuk or serpuş (red caps), 116, 159, 191. See also fez fez, 159, 191–92, 193, 196, 211, 211, 212–13. See also red caps (kavuk, serpuş, fes); robe à la turque films, 220, 220, 221, 221 Flanders, 27, 41–42, 43, 49, 63–64, 75, 115, 123 flax, 93 fondacos (warehouse and residence of merchants), 118 France: banyan production in, 131; beret, 159; cotton textiles from, 148, 149, 160; couture, 186–87, 223; cultural exchange of ideas with, 93, 195; diplomacy, 89, 91, 92, 96, 113–14, 127, 138, 147, 154, 182n7, 186, 201; Egypt, 155, 193, 195, 198, 201; fashion shows in, 224; French Revolution in, 135, 149, 151, 156; linen, 149, 151; in North Africa, 155, 193, 195, 198, 201; portraiture, 69; red caps (kavuk, serpuş, fes), 116, 159; silk in, 3, 7, 112, 151, 157, 157–58; trade, 47, 116; trade with, 159, 159; travelers/travel writings and, 96, 108n47; turquerie in, 165; wars, 135, 154; wool, 116, 149, 159; Zouave regiments and, 206. See also specific rulers Francis I (king of France), 80, 89, 91, 92, 97 Franklin, Benjamin, 198 Franks, 4, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 32, 159. See also France; Germany Fredi, Bartolo di, The Adoration of the Magi, 30–31, 31 French dress: bourellet (two-horned headdress), 63–64; buttons, 34, 34, 54; coats, 54; cravat, 135; dressing gowns, 145n74; fashion system of dress and, 41–42, 44, 79, 109, 110, 111,

112, 150, 151, 223; headgear, 101–2, 102; military dress, 132, 132–33; patterned textiles, 111; shoe construction, 43; three-piece suit, 135. See also France Fresne-Canaye, Phillipe du, 106n5 fur: European dress in eighteenth century, 172, 173, 181; European dress in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 43, 49, 54, 76; European dress in nineteenth century, 208, 209, 211; European dress in seventeenth century, 115, 134, 136, 138; European dress in sixteenth century, 82, 83, 83, 98, 99; Islamic dress, 34, 54, 55; military dress, 208; Ottoman dress in nineteenth century, 209, 211; Ottoman dress in seventeenth century, 114, 115, 124; pelisses, 34, 54, 208; trade, 27, 46, 49, 54, 93; Turkish dress, 13, 14 fustian cloth, 4, 116 Gage, Mrs. Thomas, 148 Gainsborough, Thomas, Mrs Siddons, 178 Galgario, Fra (Vittore Ghislandi), Portrait of Count Vailetti, 180 Gambussi, Zeffirino, Il Turco al Caffe di Parigi (A Turk in a Paris Café), 165 Garibaldi, Giuseppe, 206 Gaznevid Turks, 23, 179 gender differentiation, and dress, 2–3 Generous Sultan (performing arts productions), 165 George I (king of England), 153 Georgevich, Bartholomew, 94 Germany: fashion system of dress and, 79, 205; Franks, 4, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 32, 159; headgear, 66, 68–69, 69; mercenary soldiers, 102, 104; nationalism in, 154, 192; Ottoman Empire, 75; portraiture, 66, 68; Protestants in, 92; roundlets, 75; striped textiles, 29, 29; sumptuary law, 29; trade, 124; wars with, 113, 114; women’s rights and dress in, 205 Gerome, Jean-Léon, 197 Gheeraerts the Elder, Marcus, A Fête at Bermondsey, 80–81 Ghislandi, Vittore (called Fra Galgario), Portrait of Count Vailetti, 180 Gibbon, Edward, 160–61 Gilbert, W. S., 198 Giovanni di Paolo (Giovanni di Paolo di Grazia), Paradise, 44 Glavany, Mademoiselle Helene, 167

Index

237

238

Index

Grétry, André Ernest, Caravane du Caire, 164 Gritti, Andrea, 92 grograms, 50, 118, 143n33 Guer, Jean-Antoine, Kizlar Ağası (Master of the Women), 172 Guild, Shirin, 223 Haghe, Louis, Interview with the Viceroy of Egypt, . . . , 193 Hakluyt, Richard, 94 Hamilton, Jean, xv Handel, George Frideric, 165 Hanim, Nazip, 192 Hapsburgs, vii, viii, 92, 114, 116 Harbourne, William, 77n24, 93, 94 harems: erotic fantasies and, 161–62, 166, 167, 202; European men’s images of, 141, 161–62, 166, 167, 202; European women’s visits to, 125, 161–62, 181, 202; literary mythology of, 166, 173, 196; morals and, 164, 203; Ottoman women’s dress, 112, 125, 179 Harper’s Bazaar, 212 Hās. ekī Sult. ān, 164 hats. See headgear Hauer, Jean Jacques (possibly), Portrait of a Military Family, 151 Haydn, Franz Joseph, 164 headgear: aigrette, 86, 172; aigrette (tall stiff plume), 86, 172; Arab dress, 9–10, 10; beret, 159; bicorne, 67, 67, 68, 69–70; börk (Janissaries), 14, 53, 64, 70, 87, 104–5, 105; capuchon, 43, 59, 60, 63; Central Asian dress, 17, 18, 59; chaperon, 59, 60, 61, 62, 62, 64, 69–70, 75, 76; Chinese dress, 16; classical dress, 18; coiffures, 170, 175, 179–80, 181; Druze dress, 18, 68, 198, 198; edgings, 69–70, 73, 74, 75, 76–77; Egypt, 18, 222, 222; European dress in eighteenth century, 156, 159, 172, 175, 175–76, 176, 177, 179–81, 180, 181; European dress in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 44, 44, 44–45, 57–59, 60, 61, 61–64, 62, 63, 64–65, 65, 66–71; European dress in nineteenth century, 211, 211; European dress in pre-Ottoman era, 34, 35, 36–37, 37; European dress in seventeenth century, 111; European dress in sixteenth century, 101–2, 102, 103, 104, 105; the exotic, 59, 73, 123, 124, 212; feltmaking, 27, 58; fez, 159, 191–92, 193, 196, 211, 211, 212–13; German dress, 66, 68–69, 69; hennin, 21, 68,

)

Gleich, Pierre [possibly] (after Claude Louis Desrais), “Jeune Dame en Circassienne garnie de blonde,” 173 globalism: about, xvi, 216, 217; fashion system of dress and, 223–24; mass media and, 222, 223–24; tourists and, 222; the West and, 217 Glover, Lady Anne, 125 Godwin, Edward William, 201 gömlek (shirt), 12, 192 Gonzaga, Eoeonora, 97, 100 Great Britain: Arts and Crafts movement in, 200, 201; banyan production in, 131; buttons, 54; consumption system in, 158, 158, 198, 200; cotton, 148, 149, 151, 160; cravat, 135; cultural exchange of ideas with, 198, 200; diplomacy, 91, 93, 94, 98–99, 114, 155, 155, 186; East India Company, 93, 116–17, 153, 158, 162; Egypt, 193; Egypt’s occupation by, 194; the exotic, 158, 158; fashion system of dress in, 79, 110, 149, 223; historical context in nineteenth century, 192, 193, 193, 194; industrial system in, 194, 200–201; linen, 4, 116; literature, 165–66; military dress, 132; the military in, 206; operas in, 165–66; Ottoman economy and, 160–61; power of, 153, 193; robe à la sultane, 140, 140–41, 141, 142; shoe construction, 43; silk in, 117, 183n26; striped textiles, 138; Suez Canal, 193, 193, 194; sumptuary law, 54; textiles, 4, 49, 50, 77n24, 93, 115–16, 117, 159; theatrical performances in, 165–66; trade with, x, 47, 49, 77n24, 92, 93, 115, 116, 148, 153, 157, 159, 183n26; turquerie in theatrical performances in, 165; Victoria and Albert Museum, 140, 198, 200; wars, 113, 135, 154; women’s rights in, 168–69, 169, 171, 203; wool, 4, 93, 115–16, 159. See also specific rulers Greeks and Greece: architectural features, 123; caps of red wool in, 116; classical culture of, xv, 28, 51, 123, 160; classical dress, 8, 123; headgear, 119; in Istanbul, 48; in Italy, 118; operas, 197; in Ottoman Empire, 72–73, 94; oya lace, 72–73; statehood, 154, 194, 196, 197, 198, 216; sumptuary law, 84–85; textile technologies, 47, 51; trade, 26, 91, 93; Turks, 94 Greek War of Independence, 194, 196, 197, 198

68–69, 70, 71; hotoz, 180–81, 181, 219; imāma, 9–10, 10; Islamic dress in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 45, 58, 58, 59, 65, 66; Islamic dress in pre-Ottoman era, 11, 20, 20–21; kavuk, 16–17, 101–2, 102, 116, 159, 191; liripipe, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 64–65; Mamluk Empire, 44–45, 61, 63–64, 66, 67, 68–69, 69; Middle Eastern dress, 18, 34, 35, 68; Mongolian dress, 68; morals, 66–68, 69–70, 73; official dress, 44–45, 61, 62, 64, 67, 112, 115, 150, 151; Ottoman dress in eighteenth century, 179–81, 181; Ottoman dress in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 69; Ottoman dress in nineteenth century, 192, 212–13; Ottoman dress in seventeenth century, 112, 112–13; Ottoman dress in sixteenth century, 86, 101–2, 102, 103, 103, 104; prestige, 15–16; religious dress, 35, 37; robe à la sultane, 140, 141; roundlets, 59, 62–63, 66, 75, 101; Seljuk Turkish dress, 19, 72, 74; “sugarloaf” hats, 68, 69, 70; taç, 11, 17, 18, 53, 59, 62, 68, 70; tall hats, 18, 44, 65, 66, 68, 69, 86, 101–2, 102; tekke (small cap), 211, 212–13; Turkish dress, 9–10, 10, 15–16, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 20–21, 34–35, 36–37, 53, 68–69, 71, 72, 74, 119, 175–76; wigs, 111, 149, 180. See also scarves; turban; veils hemp, 93 hennin (headgear), 21, 68, 68–69, 70, 71 Henri IV (king of France), 127 Henry III (king of England), 91 Henry VII (king of England), 80 Henry VIII (king of England), 80, 80, 89, 97, 99 hi’lat (robes of honor), 52 Holbein, Hans, the Younter, The Ambassadors, 98–99 Holy Land: classical dress images in, 4; Crusaders in, 24, 31, 32, 47; dress of inhabitants of, 53, 123; Islamic dress in, 32; pilgrimage sites in, 32, 35, 51; religious dress, 32, 34, 35; scholarly dress, 32, 34; tourists in, 196; travelers/travel writings and, 196. See also Levant; Middle East; Palestine Holy Roman Empire, 24, 83, 92, 96. See also Roman Empire Hong Kong, 221, 223 hood (capuchon), 43, 59, 60, 63 hooded burnus (tunic), 8, 32–33, 34 hotoz (headgear), 180–81, 181, 219

houppelande (robe), 76 Hourani, Albert, 25 Howard, Sir Phillip, 130 Hugo, Victor, 198 Hundred Years’ War, 46 Hungary, 88, 90, 114, 119, 135–36, 207–8 Hunt, Alan, xv, 2 Hussar regiments dress, 208, 208–9, 209, 219 Ibn Jubayr, 32 Ibn Khaldun, 8 igne oya lace, 69–71, 73. See also oya lace ih.rām (unseamed garment), 8, 8 imāma (headgear), 9–10, 10 India and Indian culture: architectural features, 200; Arts and Crafts movement, 201; calicoes, 116, 148; cotton, 116–17, 130, 148, 149, 156, 160, 177, 194; the exotic, 158, 160; fashion shows in, 224; globalism, 216; historical context, 192; Islamic culture in, 179; in literature, 165–66, 198; operas, 197–98; Orientalist studies in, 162; trade with, x, 30, 49, 50, 92–93, 109, 115, 131, 146, 148, 156, 158, 158, 159–60, 186, 194, 200, 201; wars, 154 Indian dress: coats, 130–31, 177–78, 178, 178–79, 179; dressing gowns, 130, 145n74, 178; fashion system of dress and, 146, 148, 201–2, 222; Mughal dynasty, 22–23, 23, 179, 188; patterned textiles, 177, 178; prestige, 131 industrial system, 186, 195, 200–201, 213, 216 informal coats (manteaus), 129, 136, 137, 137–39, 139, 171 informal wear: European dress, 129, 136, 137, 137, 137–39, 139, 149, 170, 171; Ottoman dress in nineteenth century, 211. See also private wear Ingham, Bruce, 7–8 Ingres, Jean Auguste Dominique, 197 Iran: dress, 7, 10–11, 18; fashion system of dress and, 223; oil fields in, 217; Safavid dynasty of, viii, ix; taç, 18, 68; trade with, 200; Turkish language in, 25; Turks as rulers, 47. See also Persia; Persian dress Iraq: about, 25; Arab dress in, 9; camlet production, 50; Islamic culture in, 23; oil fields in, 217; in pre-Ottoman era, 46–47; Seljuk Turkish Empire, 25; statehood, 216; textiles, 27, 31; trade with, x; turban, 61 Index

239

Irving, Washington, 198 Islam: about, xvi, 23, 24–25, 28; about emergence of, 1; antichrist, 27, 68; Arab, as term of use, 24–25; Christianity versus, ix, xii, 23, 24, 25, 27, 47, 203, 205; conversion to, iv, viii, 15, 16, 23, 25, 47, 58, 114, 119, 124; Enlightenment, 160–61; in Istanbul, 47–48; Koran, 25, 83, 118–19; literature and, 161; in Middle East, 7; mixed marriages, 119, 125–26, 126, 127; morals, 160, 203; Muhammad (Prophet), 12, 28, 60, 160–61; “Muslim,” as term of use, 96; in Ottoman Empire, vii, viii, ix, xii, 57–58; “Saracen,” as term of use, 25; Shiites, 18, 61, 68; in Spain, 23, 24, 28, 29, 41, 46; Sufism, viii, ix, 17, 198; Sunnis, ix; Turks’ conversion to, 15, 16, 23; women’s rights in, 168, 202–3 Islamic culture: about, 23, 24–25, 28; about emergence of, 1; architectural features from, ix, 166, 200; Arts and Crafts movement, 201; ballet themes, 218, 218; the exotic, 24, 122; in India, 179; India and, 179; literature and, 198; mass media and, 223–24; during Medieval period, 201; nationalism in, 213; Orientalist studies and, 162; textiles, 29, 31, 31; theatrical performances, 54, 118, 119; trade, 29, 91; travelers/travel writings and, 161, 195; in the West, xvi, 28, 163, 183n29, 186; Western perception of, 27, 28, 47, 119, 160–61, 198 Islamic dress: about, xiii, xiv, xvi, 2; aesthetic style, xiii, xiv, 1, 30, 32, 95; biblical dress, 32, 63, 65, 66, 67; buttons, 34; Byzantine dress, 29; classical dress, 30, 95; coats, 20, 130–31; dress for European travelers, 71, 96; edgings, 69, 72; erotic fantasies and, 202; European dress and, 29, 32, 202, 212; Europe in sixteenth century image of, 95; as fashion system of dress, 2, 157, 159, 202, 222, 222, 224; fez, 191; in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 44–45, 44–45, 54, 58, 58, 59, 63, 65, 66, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72; fur, 34, 54; headgear, 11, 20, 20–21, 45, 58, 58, 59, 65, 66; layering of garments, 130–31, 206; in modernity, 20, 212, 213; Ottoman Turkish dress and, 81; patterned textiles, 29; plume, 44; in pre-Ottoman era, 1, 7, 11, 20, 20–21, 21, 29, 30, 30, 30–31, 31, 32, 34, 240

Index

35; red caps (kavuk, serpuş, fes), 159; religious dress, 11, 32; during Roman Empire, 30; silk, 7; sleeves, 32; striped textiles, 29; taç, 70; tiraz, 11, 30–31, 31, 35; traditional dress/culture, 157; tunic, 8–9, 9; turban, 34, 35, 44–45, 44–45, 58, 144, 222, 222; Turkish dress and, 15, 16; veils, 11, 21, 45. See also Islam; Islamic culture Istanbul: Archaeology Museum, 197, 200; artists as eyewitnesses in, 53; as Byzantine cultural center, 1, 23, 24, 27, 45, 46; costume books from, 96; diplomacy, 91, 91, 92, 93, 94, 114; economy of, 117; fashion system of dress and, 212; fez production in, 191; Janissaries in, 105; as literary subject, 198; Museum of Antiquities, 200; Ottoman Turks and, viii, 46, 47, 50, 51, 119–20, 195; the plague in, 46; population of, 46–47; in seventeenth century, 109; trade with, 24, 26, 48–49, 115, 116, 157; travelers/travel writings and, 102, 102, 124–25, 166, 167, 171, 195, 196; women’s rights in, 203. See also Ottoman Empire Italian dress: coats, 54, 55; fashion system of dress and, xiv, 41–42, 44, 44; lace edging, 75, 76; layering of garments, 43; roundlet, 63, 101 Italy (Italian city-states): architectural features, 51–52; ballet, 119; brocade production in, 6, 66; cultural exchange of ideas, 46, 51–52; diplomacy, 91, 92, 93, 98–99, 124, 127; fashion shows in, 224; fondacos in, 118; Levant, 52, 116; nationalism in, 154, 192; Ottoman Empire in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 47, 48; Ottoman Empire in sixteenth century, 80, 90–91, 92; patterned silks, 28, 55; portraiture, 66; silk, 3, 6, 7, 28, 55, 93, 112, 151, 157; theatrical performances, 120, 120, 165; trade, x, 3, 26, 46, 48, 52, 109, 118, 123–24; turquerie in theatrical performances in, 165; wars, 90–91, 102, 114, 120; Zouave regiments and, 206 izâr (veils ), 8, 10, 11 Izmir (Smyrna). See Smyrna (Izmir) jackets: angarkha, 23, 178; European dress, 207, 211; Mughal dress, 23; Ottoman dress, 112, 136, 192, 206; three-piece suit, 133, 133, 134–36, 211; Turkish dress, 11, 12, 21

jallâba (tunic), 8 jama (front-opening coat or jacket), 23, 177–78, 178, 178–79, 179 Jamal Brothers, 10 James I (king of England), 143 James II (king of England), 113 Janissaries: börk, 14, 53, 64, 70, 87, 104–5, 105; braid trim, 86, 132, 133; coat, 66, 133, 134; military bands and, 51, 121; plume, 53, 85, 86, 103, 133; reforms and, 194; travelers/travel writings and, 124 Jans, Geertgen Sint, The Holy Kinship, 69 Japan and Japanese culture: Arts and Crafts movement, 201; historical context, 192; literature and, 198; operas, 198; textiles from, 201; trade with, xv, 130, 186, 192, 221; Western culture and, 186 Japanese dress: aesthetic style, xii, xiv, xv, 198, 201, 223; dressing gowns, 130, 145n74, 221; fashion system of dress and, 201, 202, 221–22, 223; kimono, 131, 145n74, 221 Jem, Prince, 48 Jenkinson, Anthony, 92 Jerusalem, 24, 25. See also Palestine Jervas, Charles, Portrait of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, 169 Jews: in Istanbul, 48; Jewish dress, 7, 18, 84–85, 173–74, 174; in Ottoman Empire, viii, 7, 48, 92, 118; PalestineIsrael conflict, 216–17; Spain, 48, 92; State of Israel, 216; trade and, 23–24, 26, 118, 123–24 Jones, Owen, 201 justaucorps, 111, 149, 150 kaftan (coats): Byzantine scaramagnon, 30; entari, 13, 153, 157, 179, 181, 182, 212–13; European dress in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 54, 57, 58; European dress in sixteenth century, 83, 86, 87; Ottoman dress, 82–83, 97, 115, 134; Turkish dress, 12–15, 14, 15, 30, 32–33, 34, 54. See also coats Kalem, Mehmet Siyal, Wolfhounds and their keepers, 13 Kanai, Jun I., 145n74 Kara Mustafa, Vizier, 114, 120 Karzai, Hamid, 14, 15 Kashmiri shawls, 201, 202 kavuk (headgear), 16–17, 101–2, 102, 116, 159, 191. See also fez Kawakubo, Rei, 223

Kenzo Takada, 223 kersey, 49, 115 kimono, 131, 145n74, 221 Kinglake, Alexander, 196 Kipling, Rudyard, 198 Kizilbaş (“Red Heads”), ix, 18, 68 Kneller, Sir Godfrey, 141, 142 korbacs (long slender object), 135–36 Kyd, Thomas, 96 kyrabacs (long slender object), 135–36 lace: European dress in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 60, 69–73, 72, 73, 75, 75–77, 76; European dress in nineteenth century, 187; igne oya lace, 69–71, 73; oya lace, 19, 60, 72–73, 74, 75, 76, 187 Laguerre, Louis, the Battle of Malplaquet, 132 Landesknecht (mercernary soldier), 102, 103 Landor, Walter Savage, 198 Landry, Geoffrey IV de la Tour, 66–68 layering of garments: Central Asian dress, 13, 21, 21, 55, 56, 130–31; Eastern dress, 43, 135; European dress in eighteenth century, 175; European dress in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 43; European dress in nineteenth century, 190, 206, 209, 210, 211; European dress in seventeenth century, 134, 135, 139, 139; European dress in sixteenth century, 97, 98; Islamic dress, 130–31; military dress, 86; Ottoman dress in nineteenth century, 192, 206; Ottoman dress in seventeenth century, 130–31, 134; Ottoman dress in sixteenth century, 112, 112–13; Persian dress, 21, 130–31, 135; Turkish dress, 12, 15, 21, 44, 44–45 Lebanon, 68, 197, 204, 216, 224 Le Beau, Pierre Adrien (after Pierre Thomas Le Clerc), “Robe à la Lévite,” 174 Leczinsky, Marie (queen of Poland), 173 Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, 160–61 Leighton, Sir Frederic, 197, 200 Leighton House, 200 Le Kain, Henri Louis, 165 Leo III (pope), 24 Leopold I (king of Austria), 128 Levant: Arabs/Arab culture in, 194, 195; braid trim, 206; Christian population in, 24; cotton, 160; Crusades, 26, 27; dress in, 32, 130; Eastern dress Index

241

Life of St. Mark (detail), 61; Mamluk dress, 64; Turkish dress, 53 manteaus (informal coats), 129, 136, 137, 137–39, 139, 171 Marana, Giovanni Paolo, 183n29 Marie Antoinette (queen of France), 149, 156, 166 “Market of Foreigners” (Yabanlu Pazari), 27, 34 Marlowe, Christopher, 96, 165 Married Women’s Property Act in 1882, 203 Mary II (queen of England), 141, 142 Massenet, Jules, The King of Lahore, 198 mass fashion system of dress, xiv–xv, 2–3, 111, 192, 195, 213. See also fashion system of dress mass media (media), 222, 223–24 Master John (attrib.), Katherine Parr, 98 Masters, B., 183n26 media (mass media), 222, 223–24 Medicis, Catherine de, 80 Medieval period: bliaud (overgarment), 30, 31; European context, 23–24; European dress, 3–4, 5; guilds during, 201; Islamic culture during, 201; Romanticism, 28; “Saracen” as term of use, 25; striped textiles, 176–77 the Mediterranean: architectural features, 45, 52; Benedictines, 35; dress, 29, 30; Ottoman Empire and, 89–90, 109, 114–15, 131; trade in, 26–27, 29, 30, 34, 46, 49, 50, 90, 92, 93; Turkish naval dominance in, 48. See also Levant; Middle East; and specific countries; specific countries Mehmed Ali Pasha, 191, 193 Mehmet II, Sultan (Fatih, “the Conqueror”), 47, 52, 52, 64–65, 71, 83, 119–20, 197 Mabellini, Teodulo, I Veneziani a Mehmet III, Sultan, 91, 127 Costantinopoli (A Venetian in ConMehmet IV, Sultan, 127, 128 stantinople), 197 Melville, Herman, 196 Mahmud II, Sultan, 186, 190, 191, 193, 194 Memling, Hans, 69 Les Makamat de Harir, a theologian Menavino, Giovanantonio, 106n5 preaching (artwork), 11 mercenary soldiers, 25, 102, 103, 104 Mamluk Empire: about, 41, 64, 66; Meyerbeer, Giacomo: Abu Hassan, 197; artists as eywitnesses, 53; dress, 11; L’africaine, 198 headgear, 44–45, 61, 63–64, 66, 67, Middle Ages. See Medieval period 68–69, 69; trade in, 49, 57–58 Middle East: about, 7, 46–47; Arabs/ Mandeville (pseud.), 50–51 Arab culture in, 216–17; dance perMannerist style, 79, 80, 97, 110, 110 formances and, 220–21; globalism Mansueti, Giovanni di Niccolo: Arab and, 223–24; silk in, 4; tourists to, dress, 53; Audience of Venetian 166. See also Holy Land; specific Ambassadors in Damascus, 44–45; countries, and peoples in, 124, 135, 136; Mamluk Empire, 41; operas and, 197; textiles from, 32; trade in, x, 26, 46, 49, 52, 69, 92, 115, 136, 156, 159; Turkey, xiii. See also Holy Land Levantine, 162, 174, 175, 177, 181 Levett, Monsieur, 167 Levni, 147, 151, 152, 170 Liberty, Arthur Lasenby, 201 Limbourg Brothers. Les Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry, 60 linen, 4, 26, 116, 149, 151 Liotard, Jean-Étienne, 166, 167 liripipe (tail on hood), 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 64–65 lithām or izâr (veils for head and face), 10, 11, 11 loose trousers. See şalvar (loose trousers); trousers Lorck, Melchior: “A cavalry soldier on horseback,” 103; as eyewitnesses in Ottoman Empire, 106n5; sultans’ dress, 141; Sultan Süleyman and the Süleymaniye Mosque, 102; Turks/ Turkish culture/Turkish dress, 96, 102, 102, 103; Wohlgerissene und geschnittene Figuren, in Military Dress of the Border, 103 Loti, Pierre, 198 Lotto, Lorenzo, Portrait of Febo da Brescia, 98 Louis, Saint (king of France), 29 Louis XIII (king of France), 113, 123, 127, 135 Louis XIV (king of France), 109, 110, 111, 113–14, 127, 135, 137, 138, 148 Louis XV (king of France), 148, 149, 149, 156 Louis XVI (king of France), 149, 156, 173 Luther, Martin, 89, 94

242

Index

Middle Eastern dress: about, 7; biblical dress, 9, 31, 31–32, 53, 53–54, 63, 65, 66, 67, 95, 96, 173–74; buttons, 34; headgear, 18, 34, 35, 68; tiraz, 35; turban, 34, 35. See also Arab dress; Islamic dress; Turkish dress; and specific Ottoman dress by century the military: bands, 51, 96, 121; mercenary soldiers, 25, 102, 103, 104; in Ottoman Empire in nineteenth century, 194. See also Janissaries military dress: braid trim, 86, 100, 100, 102, 132, 133, 206, 206, 208; coats, 66, 133, 133–34, 207; cravat, 135; Croatian, 135; delly, 102–3, 104; in eighteenth century, 151; in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 132, 133; fur, 208; headgear, 53, 64, 70, 87, 104–5, 105; Hungary, 207–8; layering of garments, 86; in North Africa, 12; Ottoman dress, 131–32, 190–91, 191, 192; pelisses (fur-lined outer garment), 208; plume, 15–16, 44, 53, 85, 86, 88, 102–3, 133, 208; Safavid Persian, 17; in seventeenth century, 130, 131, 131–34, 132; Turkish dress, 102–3, 103, 104; undercoats, 133; for women, 205; Zouave uniform style, 206, 206, 207, 208. See also the military millet (religious communities), 83 Mir’ājnāme, “Muhammad with Disciples and an Angel,” 60 missionaries, 196–97 mixed marriages, 119, 125–26, 126, 127 Miyake, Issey, 223 modernity: Ottoman dress in, 191–92, 212–13, 212–13; sultans and, vii, viii mohair, 49, 50, 50, 116, 118, 143n33, 209 Molière, Le Bourgeois gentilhomme, 120, 121 Mongol dynasty (13th c.): about, viii, 46–47; dress, 12, 188; headgear, 68; Seljuk Empire, 27, 46; Turko-Mongol dress, 23, 179. See also Mughal dynasty of India (16th c.) Montagu, Lady Mary Wortley, 161–62, 162, 163, 167–69, 169, 171, 181, 184n47, 202 Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat, baron de, 161 Montgomery, Florence M., 143n33 Moore, Thomas, 198 Moorish dress: aesthetic style, xiv, 31–32, 97, 124; buttons, 34; European dress, xiii, 29, 30; Ottoman Empire’s emergence, 44, 44–45; turban, 61

Moors: Arts and Crafts movement, 201; diplomacy, 124; literature and, 198; music, 121–22; Muslims as, xiii; silk textiles, 7; Spain, 7, 41, 48, 61, 81, 121–22, 198; trade with, 123–24 morals: European dress, 29, 29, 66–68, 69–70, 73, 134, 176–77; Islam and, 160, 203; Turkish dress, 204, 205; Turks/Turkish culture, 70, 73, 161, 164, 176–77 mordant, 26–27, 48 Morghen, R., 165 Mori, Hanae, 223 Morris, William, 201 Moryson, Fynes, 72, 88, 106n5 Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus, The Abduction from the Seraglio, 164 Mughal dynasty of India (16th c.): about, viii; Indian dress, 22–23, 23, 179, 188; jackets, 23; Orientalist studies, xv; paijama (trousers), 23; paintings, 122. See also Mongol dynasty (13th c.) Muhammad (Prophet), 12, 28, 60, 160–61. See also Islam Murad III, Sultan, 91, 100 Museum of Antiquities in Istanbul, 200 music: Battle of Vienna, 120; Europe in eighteenth century, 163–64, 164–66, 165, 165–66; Europe in nineteenth century, 197–98; Europe in seventeenth century, 120, 121–22, 134; Far East, 165–66, 197–98; military bands, 51, 96, 121; operas, 120, 122, 134, 164–66, 197–98; Turks/Turkish culture, 119, 122, 134. See also theatrical performances Muslims. See Islam; Islamic dress Müteferrika Süleyman Ağa, 138 Naima, 112 Napoleon Bonaparte, xii, 155, 192, 193, 195, 198, 201, 208–9 Native Americans, 166 NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), 216 Near East. See Middle East neoclassical style, 201 the Netherlands: diplomacy, 127–28; East India Company, 145n74; men’s dress, 133; military dress, 132; textiles, 116, 117, 159, 183n26; trade with, x, 47, 109, 115, 116, 118, 123, 130, 136, 144n53, 145n74, 159, 183n26; tulips, 123, 144n53; women’s dress, 136; wool, 159 Index

243

Nicolay, Nicolas de: Aga Captaine Generall of the Janissaries, in Discovrs et histoire veritable des navigations, peregrinations et voya laceges, faicts en la Tvrqvie, 86, 87, 96, 103, 104, 106n5, 141; Azamoglan a Childe of Tribute, in Discovrs et histoire veritable des navigations, peregrinations et voya laceges, faicts en la Tvrqvie, 87; Boluch Bashi Captaine of One Hundred Janissaries, in Discovrs et histoire veritable des navigations, peregrinations et voya laceges, faicts en la Tvrqvie, 86; A Cooke of Turkie, in Discovrs et histoire veritable des navigations, peregrinations et voya laceges, faicts en la Tvrqvie, 87; costume books, 69, 71, 96, 106n5, 141; Delly, 104; delly and delly dress, 102, 103, 104; Discovrs et histoire veritable des navigations, peregrinations et voya laceges, faicts en la Tvrqvie, 84; A Gretian Woman of Estate of Adrianople in Thracia, in Discovrs et histoire veritable des navigations, peregrinations et voya laceges, faicts en la Tvrqvie, 85; A Janissary (detail), 133; Saracens, 69, 71; sultans’ dress, 141; travel writings of, 83, 96, 106n5; A Turkie Woman of Mean Estate as Dressed in Her Chamber, in Discovrs et histoire veritable des navigations, peregrinations et voya laceges, faicts en la Tvrqvie, 84; Turkish dress for women, 69; A Woman of Caramania, in Discovrs et histoire veritable des navigations, peregrinations et voya laceges, faicts en la Tvrqvie, 85 niqāb, 10–11, 38n22. See also burqa North Africa: Arabs/Arab culture in, 7, 23; braid trim, 206; dress in, 12, 60, 61, 206; France in, 155, 193, 195, 198, 201; French textiles, 159; Islam in, 23, 24; as literary subject, 198; literature and, 198; military/military dress in, 12, 89, 206; Ottoman Empire, 50, 89; trade in, 159; turban, 60, 61. See also Moors North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), 216 Northern Europe, 1, 3–4, 26, 35, 53–54, 68, 69, 159. See also specific countries official dress: braid trim, 12, 86, 100, 100, 102, 132, 193, 206, 208; Egyptian, 12, 193; European dress in seven244

Index

teenth century, 124; European dress in sixteenth century, 100, 100; headgear, 44–45, 61, 62, 64, 67, 150, 151, 191, 193; in North Africa, 12; Ottoman dress in eighteenth century, 150, 152; Ottoman dress in nineteenth century, 190–92, 190–92, 191, 193, 212, 212–13, 213; Ottoman dress in seventeenth century, 112, 115; Ottoman dress in sixteenth century, 83–84, 85, 88, 100, 100; Ottoman Empire in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 44–45, 61, 62, 64, 67; Ottoman Turkish, 11–12; in Syria, 12; turban, 112, 115, 150, 151 operas, 120, 122, 134, 164–66, 197–98. See also music Orientalism: about, xv–xvi, 144n53, 162; architectural features, xv, 200; Arts and Crafts movement, 201; dance performances and, 220–21; in fashion system of dress, 28–29, 179; films and, 220, 220, 221, 221; literature, 198; music, 164; Muslim images, 122; Orientalist studies, xv, 118–19, 162; Ottoman dress, xii; painters/paintings, 122, 197; Persia, 97; Romantics and, 198 Osman, 47, 119–20 Osman, Nakkaş, Süleyman I receiving John Sigismund Zapolya in 1566, 99, 99 Osmanli (Ottoman) state, 47. See also Ottoman Empire Ottoman dress, in eighteenth century: coats, 170; décolletage, 151, 153, 179, 181; dress for European travelers, 166; harems and, 179; headgear, 179–81, 181; hotoz, 180, 181; men, 150–51, 152, 159, 159, 166, 167, 172, 180, 182; official dress, 150, 152; in paintings, 166, 167; red caps (kavuk, serpuş, fes), 159; şalvar (loose trousers), 159; sumptuary law, 88, 146, 177, 182; women, 150, 151, 153, 153, 157, 166, 167, 168–69, 170, 173, 179–80, 181, 181–82; wool, 159 Ottoman dress, in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: biblical dress, 53, 53–54; dress for European travelers, 71; the exotic, 55; headgear, 69; official dress, 44–45, 61, 62, 64, 67; oya lace, 72; in religious paintings, 53 Ottoman dress, in nineteenth century: about, 190; braid trim, 206, 206; dolman, 207–8; fur, 209, 211; headgear, 192, 212–13; informal wear, 211; jack-

ets, 192, 206; layering of garments, 192, 206; mass fashion system of dress and, 192, 195; military dress, 190–91, 191, 192; modernity and, 191–92, 212–13, 212–13; official dress, 190–92, 190–92, 191, 193, 212, 212–13, 213; Ottoman Turkish dress, 208; private wear, 85, 211; şalvar (loose trousers), 192; sultan’s dress, 191, 192; three-piece suit and, 136, 212–13; traditional dress/culture, 191, 192, 198–99, 200; veils, 212–13; women, 188, 212–13, 212–13 Ottoman dress, in seventeenth century: about, 112–13, 112–13; characteristics of, 109; coats, 130–31; diplimatic gifts, 126–27, 128; dress for European travelers, 124, 125; the exotic, 119, 130; fur, 114, 115, 124; harems and, 112, 125; headgear, 112, 112–13; jackets, 112, 136; kaftan, 115, 134; kyrabacs, 135–36; layering of garments, 130–31, 134; manteaus (informal coats), 138; military dress, 131–32; official dress, 112, 115; patterned textiles, 112; private wear, 112–13; robes of honor, 128; şalvar (loose trousers), 112, 115, 159; striped textiles, 112, 129, 139, 139, 140; travelers/travel writings, 96, 115, 115, 141; undercoats, 133; women, 136; wool, 115 Ottoman dress, in sixteenth century: braid trim, 96, 97, 100, 100; dress for European travelers, 88; European dress, 97, 100; the exotic, 103; headgear, 86, 101–2, 102, 103, 103, 104; Islamic dress, 81; kaftan, 82–83, 97; layering of garments, 112, 112–13; military dress, 102–3, 103; official dress, 83–84, 85, 88, 100, 100; Ottoman Turkish dress, 81; plume, 103, 103; portraiture, 97, 100; sumptuary law, 79, 83–88; traditional dress/culture, 79; Turkish dress, 81, 82–83, 88; women, 170 Ottoman dress, in twentieth century, 212–13, 213 Ottoman Empire: about, vii–viii, ix–x, xii–xiii; map, 89, 90; Sublime (Ottoman) Porte as term of use, 83, 88, 94, 100, 113, 128; in twentieth century, 213, 216. See also Istanbul; Ottoman Empire, in eighteenth century; Ottoman Empire, in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries; Ottoman Empire, in nineteenth century; Ottoman

Empire, in seventeenth century; Ottoman Empire, in sixteenth century; Republic of Turkey Ottoman Empire, in eighteenth century: about, 146; consumption system in, 146, 182; cultural exchange of ideas with, 154, 160, 161; diplomacy, 146, 147, 154, 155, 155, 173, 182n7; economy of, 155, 156, 160–61, 183n26; music, 163–64; paintings of daily life, 163, 163, 164; power of, 154, 155, 156, 193; reforms, 154, 155, 156; trade with, 146, 147, 156, 157, 157–58, 158, 159, 159–60, 183n26; tulips, 123, 156; wars, 154; women’s rights in, 168 Ottoman Empire, in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: about, 41; cultural exchange of ideas with, 46, 50–54, 52, 53; diplomacy, 50; expansion of, 50; historical context, 47–48; Istanbul, viii, 46, 47, 50, 51, 119–20; Istanbul’s fall, 47, 50, 51; Italy, 48; Osmanli (Ottoman) state, 47; trade, 48, 57–58, 157 Ottoman Empire, in nineteenth century: about, 186, 190; Arabs/Arab culture in, 194, 195; Archaeology Museum and, 197, 200; architectural features, 200; consumption system, 213; cultural exchange of ideas with, 195–96, 197–98, 198–99, 200, 201; diplomacy, 186, 194, 197; Eastern Question, 193, 194; economy of, 195; European dress in, 186, 190–91, 191, 206, 211, 212–13, 212–13; the exotic and, 196–97; historical context, 193; industrial system in, 194, 195; the military, 194; military dress, 190–91, 191; operas, 197–98; paintings by Ottomans, 197, 200; reforms, 186, 190–92, 191, 194, 197, 212–13, 212–13; schools in, 197; tourists to, 186, 196; trade with, 194–95, 196; travelers/ travel writings, 186, 195, 196, 202, 203, 204; Turks/Turkish culture and, 196; wars, 194, 206, 214n13; Westernization of culture, 212–13, 213–14; women as travelers to, 186, 195; women’s rights in, 202, 203; world’s fair and, 200 Ottoman Empire, in seventeenth century: about, 109; consumption system in, 112; diplomacy, 113–14, 125, 126–28, 128, 135, 138; economy of, 112, 113, 117–18; power of, 114–15, 131; reforms, 114, 136; sumptuary law Index

245

in, 112–13; theatrical performances, 119–20, 120; trade with, 114–18, 135, 143n33, 157; Treaty of Karlowitz, 114; wars, 114, 117, 120; women’s travels/ travel writings and, 125–26, 126, 127 Ottoman Empire, in sixteenth century: about, 79, 89, 90; cultural exchange of ideas with, 93–97, 95; diplomacy, 83, 83, 89, 91, 91, 91–92, 93, 96; France, 89, 91, 92; historic context for expansion of, 89–91, 90, 114; Italy, 80; the Mediterranean and, 92; military bands, 51, 96, 121; sumptuary law, 79, 83–88; trade with, 69, 92–93, 201; travel writings on, 69, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88–89, 96, 106n5, 108n47, 141; tulips, 123; wars, 90–91, 102 Ottoman Turks: dress, xiv, 2–3, 11–12, 16, 81, 208; in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 11, 41, 46; Istanbul, viii, 46, 47, 50, 51, 119–20, 195; military dress, 17; in seventeenth century, 109; in sixteenth century, 58; tiftik (mohair), 50; trade, 197. See also Mamluk Empire overgarment (bliaud), 30, 31. See also layering of garments oya lace, 19, 60, 71–73, 74, 75, 76, 187, 187 Özbek, Rıfat, 223 Özgül, Emine, 19 padded undergarment (pourpoint), 42, 42–43, 49, 54, 57 paijama (trousers), 23 Palestine, 24, 25, 26, 29, 46–47, 89, 198, 216. See also Holy Land Palestine-Israel conflict, 216–17 Pardoe, Julia, 191, 192, 195, 202, 203 Pardoe, Thomas, 195 parti-color dress, 29 patterned textiles, 3, 6, 7, 28, 29, 29, 49, 55, 84, 112, 176, 177, 178 pelisses (fur-lined outer garment), 34, 54, 208 Pepys, Samuel, 120, 122, 130, 133, 134, 135, 144n43 performing arts: ballet, 119, 119, 165, 165, 218, 218; operas, 120, 122, 134, 164–66, 197–98. See also music; theatrical performances Persia and Persians: Arab dress from, 12; Arts and Crafts movement, 201; cotton, 49; diplomacy, 125, 128–29, 182n7; Islam in, 23; in Istanbul, 48; Orientalism, 97; Safavid Persian

246

Index

dynasty, viii, 17, 117; Seljuk Turks in, 25; silk, 4, 49, 93, 114–15, 156, 158–59; trade with, 49, 92, 109, 114–15, 123–24, 129, 135, 156, 158, 158; travelers/travel writings and, 195, 222. See also Iran Persian dress: aesthetic style of, xiv, 97; coats, 21, 21, 23, 130–31; doublebreasted style, 135; European dress in pre-Ottoman era, 21, 21, 23; European dress in seventeenth century, 126, 126, 129; fashion system of dress and, 97, 223; headgear, 69; layering of garments, 21, 135; salwar (trousers), 23; taç, 18, 68; tülbent (turban), 9–10, 16, 61, 123; vest, 134, 135. See also Iran; Persia and Persians Pezzana, Bartolemero di, 83, 96 Philips, Charles (attrib.), 184n47 the plague (Black Death), 46 plume: aigrette (tall stiff plume), 86, 172; Central Asian dress, 102; European dress in eighteenth century, 170, 173, 175; European dress in sixteenth century, 86, 103; Islamic dress, 44; military dress, 15–16, 44, 53, 85, 86, 88, 102–3, 133, 208; Ottoman dress in eighteenth century, 103, 180; prestige, 15–16, 86, 102; sultans’ dress, 175; theatrical performances, 119; Turkish dress, 15–16, 53, 88, 102, 103, 179–80 Poiret, Paul, 218, 219, 220 Poland: diplomacy, 114, 135, 154, 173; military dress coats, 207; Ottoman dress, 135, 172, 173; poulaines (long pointed shoes), 43; three-piece suit, 135; traditional dress/culture, 173; wars, 114 polonaise, 172, 173, 174, 176, 177 Pompadour, Madame de, 166, 168 Poole, Sophia Lane, 203 Portrait of a Woman of the Hofer Family (artwork), 68–69 Portrait of Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror (artwork), 64–65 portraiture: European dress in eighteenth century, 162, 163, 166, 167, 168, 169, 171, 179, 184n47; European dress in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 66, 68–69, 69, 69, 70, 73, 75; European dress in seventeenth century, 115, 115, 128, 129–30, 136, 137; European dress in sixteenth century, 97, 99, 100, 100; Hussar regiments dress,

208, 208–9, 209; Ottoman dress, 97, 100; sultans, 52, 52–53, 56, 64, 97, 99, 102; Turkish dress, 162, 163 Portugal, 92–93, 178 Postel, Guillaume, 106n5 poulaines (long pointed shoes), 42–43, 43, 68 pourpoint (padded undergarment), 42, 42–43, 49, 54, 57 private wear, 85, 112–13, 170, 211. See also informal wear Profile Portrait of a Lady (artwork), 64–65 Protestants, 89, 92, 94, 110, 113–14 Ptolemy, 25 Puccini, Giacomo, 198 qamīs (tunic), 8–9, 9. See also thawb (tunic) Quataert, Donald, 88 Racine, Jean, 119, 165, 173 Radegonde est amenée devant Clothaire (artwork), 5 Rafael (Refail), Portrait of a Lady of the Court, 181 ready-to-wear apparel, 187 Reception of Foreign Ambassadors by Sultan Mehmet III (artwork), 91 red caps (kavuk, serpuş, fes), 116, 159, 191. See also fez “Red Heads” (Kizilbaş), ix, 18, 68 Refail (Rafael), Portrait of a Lady of the Court, 181 Reformation, 89, 110 Rei Kawakubo, 223 religious communities (millet), 83 religious dress: European dress, 32, 34, 35, 37, 42–43; in Holy Land, 32, 34, 35; Islamic dress, 11, 32; striped textiles, 29; Turkish dress, 32, 34; veils, 35, 37 Rembrandt van Rijn, 122, 123 Renaissance, 53, 62–63, 79–80, 160, 189 Republic of Turkey: about, viii, xiii, xiv, 191–92, 216; Archaeology Museum in, 197; baths, 124; Cold War, 216; dress in modernity, 20; fashion system of dress in, 223; mass fashion system of dress in, 213; NATO and, 216; reforms, 213, 216; schools in, 197; secularism and, 197, 216; Topkapı Palace Museum, 18, 81, 112; tulips, 123; Western culture and, 216 Reymerswaele, Mariunus van, Two Tax Gatherers, 69–70, 73

Reynolds, Sir Joshua. Mrs. Baldwin in Eastern Dress, 181 Richardson, Jonathan, 184n47 Richmond, Duchess of, 171 ridâ´ (unseamed garment), 8 robe à la francaise, 148–49, 149, 171 robe à la Lévite, 173–74, 174 robe à la sultane, 138, 138–39, 139, 140, 140–42, 141, 171, 173; European dress in eighteenth century, 171, 173 robe à la turque: European dress in eighteenth century, 169, 174–76, 176, 177, 177; European dress in seventeenth century, 138, 139. See also turquerie Roberts, David, Interview with the Viceroy of Egypt, . . . , 193 robes of honor, 13, 14, 30, 52, 55, 128 Rococo, 171 Rodinson, Maxime, 28, 105n2 Roger II (king), 7, 29 Roman Empire: about, 1, 23, 25, 47, 63; architectural features, 123; classical culture, 11, 28, 160; classical dress, 3–4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 30, 31–32, 62–63, 123, 124, 201; European dress, 3–4; Islamic dress during, 30; Orientalist studies, xv; rulers, 83, 96; Turks, 92. See also Holy Roman Empire Romanticism, 179, 197, 198 Ross, Sir William, Victoria, Princess Roya lacel in Turkish Costume, 187 Rossini, Gioacchino Antonio: Adina, or the Caliph of Baghdad, 197; The Italian Girl in Algiers, 197; Maometto II, 197; The Seige of Corinth, 197; The Turk in Italy, 197 Rotrou, J., La Soeur, 120 Roumais, Thomas de, 34 roundlet, 59, 62–63, 66, 75, 101 Rubens, Peter Paul, 97, 100, 115, 122, 122–23 Rudolph II (Holy Roman Emperor), 83, 96 Russia: Ballet Russe, 218, 218; diplomacy, 147; fashion system of dress and, 97, 219, 220; fur from, 27, 49, 54; power of, ix, 154–55, 193, 194; Romanovs, vii, viii; trade with, 49, 54–55, 92, 154–55; traditional dress/ culture, 219, 220, 222; wars, 194, 206, 214n13 Russo-Turkish war of 1877–1878, 194, 206, 214n13

Index

247

Safavid Persian dynasty, viii, ix, 17, 117 Said, Edward, xv Saint-Jean, Jean Dieu de, 139 Saint Saen, Camille, 198 St. Jean, Jean de, 139 Saladin (Salah al-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub), 25, 26 şalvar (loose trousers): Ottoman dress, 112, 115, 159, 192, 212–13; sumptuary law, 84; Turkish dress, 12, 15, 21, 84, 112, 204 Sampsonia, Teresa, 125–26, 126, 127 Sannazaro, Iocopo, 54 “Saracens”: headgear, 69, 71; as term of use, 25, 96 Saudi Arabia: burqa (niqāb), 10–11; Christianity, 24–25; dress for European travelers, 125; Islam in, 23; mass media and, 223–24; sirwāl (loose trousers), 12, 204; statehood, 216; trade with, 200 scaramagnon (kaftan style), 30 Scarce, Jennifer, 68 scarves: Anatolia, 71; European dress in eighteenth century, 175–76, 176; European dress in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 19, 69, 70, 71–72, 74, 75; European dress in sixteenth century, 84; igne oya lace, 70–71; oya lace, 19, 71–72, 187; Turkish dress, 18, 19, 20, 20–21, 34–35, 175–76, 176; yaşmak, 18, 212–13. See also veils Schéhérazade (ballet), 218 scholarly dress, 32, 32–33, 34 Schongauer, Martin, Christ Carrying the Cross, 72 Schut, Pieter Hendricksz, Vertrek van Karel II uit Scheveningen naar Engeland, 130 the self, and dress, 1–2, 218 Selim II, Sultan, 89, 91 Selim III, Sultan, 155 Seljuk Turkish Empire: about, 7, 25, 27, 46; Byzantine Empire, 24, 30; dress, 11; headgear, 19, 72, 74; in Middle East, 24; Mongol dynasty, 27, 46; oya lace, 72, 74; trade in, 27, 34 Selve, Georges de, 98–99 Serbia, 154, 194 serpuş or fes or kavuk (red caps), 116, 159, 191. See also fez Seven Years’ War, 154 Seymour, Jane (queen of England), 80 shahs, viii, ix, 125, 128–29 Shakespeare, William, 96 Sherbasse (fine silk), 117 248

Index

Sherley, Anthony, 92 Sherley, Robert, 92, 126 Shiites, 18, 61, 68 Shirley, Robert, 125–26, 126, 128–29 Shirley, Teresa Sampsonia, 125–26, 126, 127 shirts: gömlek, 12, 192; igne oya lace, 70; oya lace, 72 shoes, 42–43, 43, 68, 84–85 Sicily, 7, 26, 29 siglaton (cloth or garment), 27 silk: aesthetic style, 31–32; Ardasse, 117; in Britain, 117, 183n26; China, 158, 159; dressing gowns, 129; Europe, 3, 4, 6, 7, 7; European dress in eighteenth century, 149, 151, 157, 157, 157–58; European dress in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 49, 49, 55; European dress in nineteenth century, 194; European dress in preOttoman era, 26, 28, 29; European dress in seventeenth century, 112; European dress in sixteenth century, 93; France, 3, 7, 112, 151, 157, 157–58; fustian cloth, 4; Italy, 3, 6, 7, 28, 55, 93, 112, 157; Muslims’ production of, 6, 29; patterned textiles, 3, 6, 7, 28, 49, 55, 112, 176; Persia, 4, 49, 93, 114–15, 156, 158–59; robe à la sultane, 140, 141; sericulture, 7, 93, 158–59; Sherbasse, 117; siglaton, 27; Smyrna, 114–15; striped textiles, 14, 15, 84, 176; trade, 3, 93, 114–15, 117, 157–59, 158, 194; Turks, 49, 117 Sinzendorf, Joachim, 106n5 sirwāl (loose trousers), 12, 204 Sixtus IV (pope), 54 sleeves: Central Asian dress, 13, 18, 21, 55; European dress in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 55, 56, 57, 57, 58; European dress in pre-Ottoman era, 4, 12–13, 14, 15, 18, 21, 32, 32–33, 43; European dress in sixteenth century, 80, 80–81, 97, 98, 101, 101, 102; Islamic dress, 32; Turkish dress, 13, 14, 57. See also dolman Smyrna (Izmir): European citizens in, 148, 174, 181, 198–99; trade in, 114–15, 116, 117, 125, 156, 157, 159 Sobieski, Jan (king of Poland), 114 soutache braid trim, 206, 206 Spain: aesthetic style, 80; Arabic language, 28; Charles V, 80, 89; Islam in, 23, 24, 28, 29, 41, 46; Jews, 48, 92; literature and, 198; Moors, 7, 41, 48, 61, 81, 121–22, 198; music, 121–22;

patterned silks, 28, 55; trade with, 26, 159; wars with, 192 Spanish-American War, 192 Spilsbury, Francis B., The Grand Vizier’s Tent, 155 Spohr, Louis, Jessonda, 198 Stanhope, Lady Hester, 202, 204 State of Israel, 216 striped textiles: Central Asian dress, 29, 176; Chinese dress, 176; chinoiserie, 177; European dress, 29, 29, 139, 139, 140, 149, 176–77, 178; Islamic dress, 29; morals as signified by, 29, 29, 176–77; Ottoman dress in seventeenth century, 112, 129; silk, 14, 15, 84, 176; sumptuary law, 84, 176–77 Suez Canal, vii, 193, 193, 194, 206 Sufism, viii, ix, 17, 198 “sugarloaf” hats, 68, 69, 70 Şükri Bidlisi, The Ottoman Army drawn up for Battle with the Safavids, 17, 17 Suleyman I (“The Lawgiver” [Kanuni]) [Suleyman the Magnificent]: diplomacy, 91, 92, 123; dress of sultans, 97, 99, 102; expansion of the empire, 90–91, 114; Italy, 80; operas about, viii, 13, 89, 164; Ottoman dress, 102; sumptuary law, 83–85; theatrical performances, 96, 120, 120, 122, 134 Sullivan, Arthur, 198 sultans: about, vii viii; dress of, 56, 86, 87, 97, 99, 102, 150–51, 152, 175, 191; portraiture, 52, 52–53, 56, 64, 97, 99, 102; power of, vii, viii; theatrical performance subjects, 120, 122, 164, 165, 197. See also specific sultans sumptuary law: Europe, 29, 29, 54, 85–86, 176–77; Ottoman Empire, 79, 83–88, 112–13, 146, 177, 182 surcoat, 32, 34 Sweden, 26, 154, 162 Switzerland, 102, 104–5, 151, 166 Syria: aesthetic style, 30; architectural features from, 200; cotton printing in, 160; dress, 9, 12; European citizens in, 174; headgear, 18, 68; Islam in, 23; Janissaries in, 105; military dress in, 12; official dress in, 12; oya lace, 72–73; rulers, x, 23, 25, 46–47, 89; Seljuk Turkish Empire, 25; Seljuk Turks in, 25; silk fabric, 93; statehood, 216; trade with, 18, 26, 48, 92– 93, 103, 115, 116, 117, 125, 156, 158–59, 160; traditional dress/culture, 198. See also Aleppo

taç (headgear), 11, 17, 18, 53, 59, 62, 68, 70 Tafferner, Paul, Walter, Count of Leslie, 128 tail on hood (liripipe), 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 64–65 Takada, Kenzo, 223 Tam, Vivienne, 223 Tamerlane, 119, 165 Tardieu, Ambroise, Autre Femme Grecque, 170 Tavernier, Jean-Baptiste, 125, 162 tekke (small cap), 211, 212–13 textile technologies, ix–x, 1, 26–27, 43, 46, 48, 51, 146, 186, 194, 195, 213. See also specific textiles thawb (tunic), 8–9, 9, 10, 11, 12, 201. See also qamīs (tunic) theatrical performances: commedia dell’arte, 54, 120–21; Europe in eighteenth century, 163–66, 165, 168, 185n48; Europe in seventeenth century, 118, 119–21, 120, 134, 141; Europe in sixteenth century, 95–96; the exotic, 95; Far East and, 165–66, 197–98; Islamic culture and, 54, 118, 119; Ottoman Empire history, 119–20, 120; plume, 119; Turks/Turkish culture, 95–96, 118, 119, 120–21; turquerie in, 165. See also music Thirty Years’ War, 135 three-piece suit, 133, 133, 134–36, 144n43, 211, 212–13 tiftik (mohair), 50 timeline, xix–xx tippets, 54, 58, 66 tiraz (band on sleeves), 9, 11, 30, 30–31, 31, 35 Topkapı Palace Museum, 18, 81, 112 tourists, 115, 166, 186, 195, 196, 222 traditional dress: European dress, 202, 217, 222; globalism versus, 217; Islamic dress, 157; Ottoman dress in nineteenth century, 191, 192, 198–99, 200; Ottoman dress in sixteenth century, 79; Poland, 173; Russia, 219, 220, 222; Syria, 198; Turkish dress, 12, 14–15, 20–21, 75, 219, 220 travelers and travel writings: dress for European, 71, 88, 96, 124–25, 129, 166, 167–68, 184n47; Europe in nineteenth century, 195–96, 197; Europe in seventeenth century, 115, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123–25, 128, 130, 132–33, 134, 135, 144n43; Europe in sixteenth century, 69, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88–89, 96, 106n5, 108n47, 141; the exotic, 51, Index

249

115; fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 50–51, 71; in Istanbul, 102, 102, 124–25, 166, 167, 171; in nineteenth century, 195, 196; Ottoman Empire in nineteenth century, 186, 195, 196; Ottoman Empire in seventeenth century, 125–26, 126, 127; to Persia, 222; Turks and, 118, 166, 197; the West and, 166, 196; women in eighteenth century as, 161–62, 162, 163, 167, 169, 181, 184n47, 202; women in nineteenth century as, 195, 202, 203–4, 211; women in seventeenth century as, 125–26, 126, 127 Treaty of Karlowitz, 114 Treaty of Lausanne, 216 trousers: paijama, 23; sirwāl, 12, 168, 204. See also şalvar (loose trousers) tülbent (turban), 9–10, 16, 61, 123. See also turban tulips, 16, 123, 144n53, 156 tunic: choli, 23; classical dress, 8, 201; Europe in pre-Ottoman era, 2, 4; hooded burnus, 8, 32–33, 34; Middle Eastern dress, 8–9, 9, 10; qamīs, 8–9, 9; thawb, 8–9, 9, 10, 11, 12, 201 Tunisia, 159, 191, 206, 223 turban: Arab dress, 61; chaperon, 59, 60, 61, 62, 62, 64, 69–70, 75, 76; dulband, 9–10; Egypt, 222, 222; European dress in eighteenth century, 156, 172, 175, 179–80, 180; European dress in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 44–45, 58–59, 60, 61, 61–63, 62, 63, 64–65, 65; European dress in sixteenth century, 101–2, 102; the exotic, 59, 212; Islamic dress, 34, 35, 44, 44–45, 58, 144, 222, 222; kavuk (hat), 16–17, 102, 102; Mamluk Empire, 68, 68–69, 69; Moorish dress, 61; official dress, 112, 115, 150, 151; Ottoman dress in nineteenth century, 192, 212–13; Ottoman dress in seventeenth century, 112, 112–13, 123; Persian dress, 9–10, 16, 61; roundlet, 59, 62–63, 66, 75, 101; tülbent, 9–10, 10, 16, 17, 53, 61–63, 62, 63, 64–65, 65, 123; Turkish dress, 53, 61–63, 62, 63, 64–65, 65 turcha (coat), 54, 55, 97, 98 Turkish dress: about, 12, 18; ballet, 119; biblical dress, 53, 95, 96; braid trim, 82–83, 97; buttons, 54; caps of red wool, 116; coats, 12–15, 14, 15, 18, 20, 23, 30, 32–33, 34, 44, 44–45, 97, 206; dolman, 12, 207, 208; dress for 250

Index

European travelers, 88, 166, 167–68, 184n47; edgings, 69, 72; erotic fantasies and, 202; European dress in eighteenth century, 148, 153, 162, 166–69, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 184n47, 206; European dress in nineteenth century, 202, 204, 212–13; European dress in sixteenth century, 81, 88, 97, 100, 105n2, 123, 124; fashion system of dress and, 79, 148, 202, 219, 220; headgear, 9–10, 10, 15–16, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 20–21, 34–35, 36–37, 53, 68–69, 71, 72, 74, 119, 175–76; hennin, 20–21, 68–69, 71; igne oya lace, 70–71; Islamic dress and, 15, 16; jackets, 11, 12, 21; layering of garments, 12, 15, 21, 44, 44–45; men, 166; military dress, 102–3, 103, 104; morals, 70, 73, 204, 205; Mughal dynasty, 23; in operas, 134; Ottoman dress in sixteenth century, 81, 82–83, 88; Ottoman Turkish dress, xiv, 2–3, 11–12, 16, 81, 208; oya lace, 19, 60, 72, 73, 75, 187; in paintings, 53, 96, 166, 167; patterned textiles, 84; plume, 15–16, 53, 88, 102, 103, 179–80; portraiture, 162, 163; robes of honor, 13, 14; şalvar (loose trousers), 12, 15, 21, 84, 112, 204; scarves, 18, 19, 20, 20–21, 34–35, 175–76, 176; scholarly dress, 32, 32–33, 34; sleeves, 13, 14, 57; striped textiles, 139–40, 176–77; taç, 53; theatrical performances, 134; traditional dress/ culture, 12, 14–15, 20–21, 75, 219, 220; tülbent (turban), 9–10, 10, 16, 17, 53, 61–63, 62, 63, 64–65, 65; undercoats, 12–13; veils, 18, 21, 23, 34; vest, 123, 125, 134, 135; women, 163, 166, 170, 173; women’s rights and, 168–69, 169, 171, 204 Turko-Mongol dress, 23, 179 Turks and Turkish culture: about, 46, 163; as term of use, 96; architectural features from, 200; Arts and Crafts movement, 201; baths, 122, 124, 181; camlet, 49–50, 50, 78n24, 93, 118, 143n33; carpets, 49, 80, 93, 97, 99; Central Asians and culture, 12, 13, 13, 17, 18, 21, 21; conversion to Islam by, 15, 16, 23; Crusades and, 216–17; delly, 102–3, 104; Europe in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 44–45, 44–45, 46; Europe in sixteenth century, 94–95, 96; Europe in twentieth century, 216–17; the exotic, 119, 166, 212; Fondaco dei Turchi, 118; Gaznevid

Turks, 23, 179; military bands, 51, 121; mixed marriages, 125–26, 126, 127; morals, 70, 73, 161, 164, 176–77; music, 119, 122, 134; operas, 134, 165, 197; Ottoman Empire in nineteenth century, 196; silk production, 117; statehood, 213, 216; theatrical performances, 95–96, 118, 119, 120–21, 121; trade, 49; travelers/travel writings, 118, 166, 197; tulips, 123; Turk as the Sick Man of Europe, 196; women in, 163, 168, 173, 203. See also Mamluk Empire; Ottoman Turks; Republic of Turkey turquerie: about, 166, 171–72; European dress in eighteenth century, 162, 165, 166, 170, 171, 173, 175, 184n48, 187; European dress in nineteenth century, 187, 206; European dress in seventeenth century, 140, 146, 148; in theatrical performances, 165. See also robe à la turque Tutankhamun, King, 221 Twain, Mark, 196 two-horned headdress (bourellet), 63–64, 66–67, 101 Uighur, 16, 176 Umayyad dynasty, 25, 30 undercoats, 12–13, 32, 84, 133. See also layering of garments United Nations, 216 United States: bloomer costume, 204–5, 204–6, 205; Chinese dress, 201, 202; consumption system, 201; consumption system in, 201, 213; cotton from, 148, 194; couture in, 186–87; diplomacy, 14, 186; dress history perspective in, 217; dress in nineteenth century in, 201, 205, 211, 213; ethnic majority in, xvi; the exotic in, 166, 201, 211, 212; fashion shows in, 224; fashion system of dress in, 201, 204, 204–5, 204–6, 205, 206, 207, 209, 210, 211, 211, 212–13, 217; historical context, 192; Indian calicoes in, 148; Indian dress, 201–2; industrial system in, 186, 213; Islam in, xvi; Kashmiri shawls, 201, 202; literature in, 166, 196, 198; men’s dress, 211, 213; the military in, 206; missionaries from, 196–97; Native Americans, 166; neoclassical style, 201; Orientalist painters from, 197; power of, 193; ready-to-wear apparel in, 187; and schools in Ottoman Empire, 197;

textiles from, 195; tourists from, 196; trade with, 148, 156, 158, 159, 192, 196; travelers/travel writings and, 196; vivandières or cantinières (women’s auxiliaries in the military), 205, 205; wars, 153, 154, 192, 194, 205; women’s dress, 205, 211, 213; women’s rights in, 202 Urban II (pope), 24 Valentino, Rudolph, 220, 220 Van Delan, Dirck, Conversation outside a Castle, 110 Van Dyck, Sir Anthony, 126, 127 Van Erpe, Thomas, 118 Van Leemput, Remigus, Henry VII, Elizabeth of York, Henry VIII and Jane Seymour, 80 Van Loo, Carle, Las sultane, 167, 168 Vanmour, Jean-Baptiste: Femme Turque qui Fume sur la Sopha, 164; Fille Turque Prenant le Caffe sur le Sopha, 161; Lady Mary Wortley Montagu with her son, Edward Wortley Montagu, and attendants, 162; Lyingin Room of a Distinguished Turkish Woman, 163; Marchand Franc, 159; La sultane asseki, ou sultane reine, 164; A Turkish Lady of the Court, 153 Vecellio, Cesare, 96 veils: Arab dress, 10, 11, 11; Egyptian dress in modernity, 222, 222; European religious dress, 35, 37; Islamic dress, 11, 21, 45, 222, 222; lithām or izâr, 10, 11, 11; Turkish dress, 18, 21, 23, 34; yaşmak, 18, 212–13. See also scarves vest: Chinese dress, 130; Eastern dress in seventeenth century, 133, 134, 135; European dress in seventeenth century, 120, 133, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137–38, 144n43; Persian dress, 134, 135; threepiece suit, 133, 133, 134–36, 211; Turkish dress, 123, 125, 134, 135 Victoria (queen of England), 187, 188 Victoria and Albert Museum, 140, 198, 200 Villalon, Crisobel de, 106n5 vivandières or cantinières (women’s auxiliaries in the military), 205, 205 Volney, Constantin-François, 162 Voltaire, 160–61 Voysey, Charles Francis Annesley, 201 War of the Austrian Secession, 154 Watson, Caroline, 184n47 Index

251

Watteau, Jean Antoine, 149, 170; The Shop Sign of the Art Dealer Gersaint, 149; Woman in a Striped Dress, 170 the West and Western culture: aesthetic style in, 220; China/Chinese culture and, 186; cotton from, 148; the East versus, 1, 27–29, 50–51, 51, 69; Far East trade with, 186; fashion system of dress in, 201, 204, 217–18, 220, 222, 222; globalism and, xvi, 217; historical context, 192; Indian goods in, 148, 186; industrial system and, 186, 213, 216; Islam in, xvi, 28, 160–61, 163, 183n29, 186; mass fashion system of dress in, 192; NATO and, 216; perception of Islamic culture in, 27, 28, 47, 119, 160–61, 198; power of, 192; Republic of Turkey and, 216–17; trade within, 148, 192; travelers/travel writings and, 166; Westernization of culture, 212–13, 213–14, 216, 217; women’s rights in, 168–69, 169, 171, 189, 202–3. See also specific countries West Indies, 118, 148, 154, 160 wigs, 111, 149, 180 William III (prince), 141 William of Orange, 113 William of Tyre, 28

252

Index

women’s rights: Egypt, 203; European dress, 169, 171, 189, 202, 204–5, 204–5, 204–6, 205; in Islam, 168, 202–3; Ottoman Empire, 168, 202, 203; Turkish dress, 168–69, 169, 171, 204; in the West, 168–69, 169, 171, 171, 189, 202–3 wool: European, 4, 27, 49, 93, 115–16, 149, 159; fashion system of dress and, 149, 151; fustian cloth, 4, 116; Ottoman production of, 159; Smyrna, 116, 117, 159; trade, 27, 159; Turks, 11, 49, 93, 116 world’s fair and exhibition, 198, 198–99, 200 World War I, vii, 195, 217, 218 World War II, 217 Worth, Charles, 186–87 Wright, John Michael, The Family of Sir Robert Vyner, 136 Wych, Sir Peter, 125 Yabanlu Pazari (“Market of Foreigners”), 27, 34 Yamamotot, Yohji, 223 yaşmak (face veil), 18, 212–13 Yohji Yamamoto, 223 Zouave uniform style, 205, 206, 207, 208

Charlotte A. Jirousek (1938–2014) was Associate Professor of Textiles and Apparel in the College of Ecology at Cornell University. Jirousek published extensively in refereed journals and contributed to several edited collections including The Encyclopedia of World Dress and The Fabric of Life: Cultural Transformations in Turkish Society. Sara Catterall was born in Ankara and grew up in Minneapolis. She has worked as an academic librarian, book indexer, editor, and writer. She lives outside Ithaca, New York.

acquiring editor

Jennika Baines

project manager

Rachel Rosolina

book & jacket designer composition typefaces

Pam Rude Tony Brewer Minion & Monotype Corsiva