Signs of their Times
“There, [Abbot Martin] found an aged man of agreeable countenance, having a long and hoary beard, a priest, but very unlike our priests in his dress.” –from the description of the looting of the Hagia Sophia[1]
How we choose to dress reflects a lot about who we are: who we admire and what styles we imitate indicate to a large degree the values we hold and the cultures we belong to. This is especially so in the case of a uniform or symbolic costume, as clothing which serves specifically to demarcate a group in terms of status, belief, or social standing. But no one group, whether it be political, social, or religious, exists in a vacuum, and thus, “[a]s cultures come into contact, there is a reciprocal infusion of new ideas … resulting in styles that are mixtures” (Tortora & Eubank, 5). As such, symbolic or demarcating costume can also demonstrate relationships between one culture and another, be they friendly or hostile, at a period in history. Geanakoplos asserts that patterns of intercultural interaction between two groups reveal the cultural influences that one exerts on the other (3); I believe that these patterns of intercultural exchange also leave traces in symbolic dress. In particular, an examination of the evolution of church vestments in the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches should demonstrate influences – or lack of influences – that correspond to the intercultural relationships of the time. Through a side-by-side comparison of historical and selected costume-related developments, I hope to demonstrate that the historical relationships between Eastern and Western Christendom have been particularly formative in the evolution of each group’s particular ecclesiastical dress.
The Rescript of Milan, issued by Emperor Constantine in 313CE, legalized Christianity and allowed it to grow as the favoured and unifying religion of the Roman Empire. However, the official split between the Eastern and Western halves of the Empire in 395CE paved the way for the development of two separate Christian Churches: Western Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. East and West by this time had already grown significantly distant in their theology, a fact to which the Arian crisis attests. But as their Christian heritage was a common one, one costume was uniformly adhered to for all Church officials at this early period. This consisted of a tight-sleeved tunica worn underneath a dalmatic, a loose robe with large sleeves decorated simply with two potamoi – river-like stripes running from the shoulders to the feet. A fully circular cape called the chasuble covered these tunics, and a bishop wrapped a pallium with a cross on it around his neck, letting the long ends dangle to the ground. These elements, we shall see, form the basic elements of church costume throughout the ages.
The Western Roman Empire eventually fell to waves of invading Germanic tribes who swept across Europe, changing the political and cultural face of the continent. However, while the West tumbled into its obscurum saeculum, the East prospered in intellectual and cultural stability. These Eastern, Byzantine citizens considered their Empire to be the natural continuation of the Roman Empire; their capital of Constantinople was ‘New Rome’, and they themselves were “Romaioi, the true Romans” (Nicol, I:317). Their evolving cultural heritage was built strongly on these Roman roots, while their neighbours to the West stuck to Germanic customs, legal systems, political structures, and costume.
The famous mural of Justinian and Theodora in the church of Saint Vitali demonstrates Byzantine costume in the sixth and seventh centuries (Houston, 13). Rich in silken fabrics from the East, Byzantine costume, although simple in cut, was exceptional in decoration. Sumptuous jewels adorn upper class costume, along with colourful clavii and segmentae on tunics. Emperor Justinian and his noble attendants wear a knee-length dalmatic over a tunica, attaching the garment restricted to noblemen, the paludamentum with the square tablion decoration, to one shoulder with an elaborate pin. Empress Theodora’s dalmatic is floor-length, and her paludamentum is secured under a rich superhumeral. Both dalmatics have split sides up to the knee, edged with segmentae. Interestingly, however, the archbishop and his tonsured accomplice show no change in their costume from that of the earlier church. Their robes are not sumptuously decorated: they retain the original potamoi on their dalmatics but no more. The remarkable contrast between the Emperor and his archbishop may reinforce the Byzantine concept of their Emperor’s role in religion:
[t]he emperor was the elect of God, crowned by God and guarded by God… he was the terrestrial image of the Logos of God reigning over the earthly reflexion [sic] of the Kingdom of Heaven… [The Byzantine] basileus and autokrator was the representative of Christ who, as pambasileaus and pantokrator, could only be one. (Nicol, 316)
Thus the Emperor therefore exceeds the Patriarch in his position as the symbolic head of the Church.
In the eighth and ninth centuries, Byzantine costume became even more sumptuous in decoration. In the secular world, Byzantines shortened their dalmatics and split them up the front to their knees so that the contrasting and equally decorated tunica showed underneath. Meanwhile, both tunic and dalmatic became tighter-fitting (Tortora & Eubank, 95). Superhumeral and paludamentum continued to be worn, and a kind of pallium came into style for the upper classes. This pallium was thicker and highly decorated, hanging down on either side of the body almost like a monastic tabard.
By the late ninth century, Eastern Orthodox costume had seen the addition of two elements: the epitrachelion and the epigonation. This former was added in the 820s (Innemée, 159), and was a type of thin and scarf, hanging around the neck and down the front of the dalmatic in a style reminiscent of the lay pallium. It ended in fringes at the tunic’s hemline and was decorated with crosses or pictures of saints (Houston, 164). The latter was a “lozenge-shaped pendant of stiff material … said to have been originally a handkerchief” (Houston, 166), suspended from a belt and also highly decorated. The ecclesiastic might also wear a superhumeral such as worn by the heads of state, and his phenolion was lightly peppered with stars.
This clear elaboration of earlier costume and controlled adoption of secular decorative motifs, I believe, reflects the rise in power of the patriarchate during this period. The compilation of the epanagoge in this period clarified the Byzantine division between sacred and secular, and for the first time the Patriarch begins to assume the former-Imperial title of Eikon Christou. Visual representations of the period confirm this new status, showing “emperor and patriarch standing side by side in the manner of Moses and Aaron, instead of the emperor’s appearing, as formerly, in a posture very superior to that of the patriarch”(Geanakoplos, 44). It should also be noted, however, that the Orthodox costume retains important characteristics in opposition to the changes in style evident in Byzantine dress; the plain dalmatic, now referred to as the sticharion, still only decorated with potamoi, and its continued floor-length resulted in the discarding of the tunica altogether.
The Frankish Empire of Charlemagne signaled not only a revitalized era in European history, but also a new era in Byzantine/Western relations. These relationships were complex and multi-faceted, but exerted a significant impact on costume on both sides, and so demand some discussion.
Under Charlemagne, the West experienced a passion for all things Eastern. Renewed contact with the rich East brought silks and brocades to Europe (Geanakopolos, 69, 74), Eastern absolutism may have influenced the development of Western kingships (Geanakopolos, 70) and Charlemagne built his Dom in Aachen in a Byzantinesque style. However, the East retained a contempt for Westerners based on their perceived superiority to Western culture. As Roman citizens, they despised the ‘barbarians’ with their backwards laws, vulgar Latin, disgusting mannerisms and poor hygiene (Geanakopolos; Nicol). The final insult came with the coronation of Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor by Pope Leo III in 800CE (Nicol, I:320-1): every Byzantine citizen knew that the real Roman Empire was their own, and that their basileus was placed there by God as the Roman Emperor! The Easterners looked on the Westerners as strayed sheep who needed to be “brought back within the fold” (Nicol, II:1), while the Western Popes sought continuously to bring the Eastern patriarchy under their sole jurisdiction. With these two differing agendas, it should not be too surprising that quarrels escalated until the two sides excommunicated each other in 1054CE.
The cultural conceptions of the East by the West and the West by the East being so markedly different in the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries, it is not surprising that cultural influence flowed from East to West (Geanakoplos, 9) instead of the reverse. And yet it is amazing to witness the change in Frankish costume at this period. Traditional tribal styles were laid by in exchange for two layers of contrasting tunics: outer tunic split up the sides in the geometric pattern preferred by the Byzantines, pallium draped around the neck and crossed in front, a copious and decorated paludamentum imperialis, and a segmented Eastern-style crown. It is obvious that “[from Charlemagne’s reign] until the thirteenth century the Byzantine style dominated the court costumes of Germany and France” (Houston, 156).
Although the East carefully distinguished between Imperial and Patriarchal power, this period in Western history saw a close competition between Church and State for absolutist rule as several princes and popes declared their sole right to bear the swords of secular and sacred power. I believe that this medieval competition was also represented in the developments of sacred costume of the time. For example, the Bayeux tapestry of 1066 already represents a sacred costume different from the traditional prototype yet highly similar to the Western Imperial style. The archbishop’s alba camisa is visible underneath the dalmatic over top, while other depictions of the same era show decorated dalmatics in contrast with the white camisa; this latter begins to adopt a decorative panel resembling segmentae at front and centre. A scarf-like stole has been adopted, the mitre begins to develop as a ‘crown’ for Archbishops, and the adoption of the cope by Innocent III appropriates the paludamentum imperialis for ecclesiastical use. Only the chasuble, now shortened in the front, and the pallium over top, now sewn together to encircle the shoulders, retain traces of the original elements. Yet it must be noted that the plain chasuble was originally thought to symbolize the voluntary poverty of those associated with the church, and only in Charlemagne’s era did it become a highly decorative and symbolic vestment, expressly ecclesiastical in association (Tyack, 79). Clearly, the Church has been influenced by the Byzantine-styled costume of its Holy Roman Emperors. I believe that this adoption of the costume of kings and emperors by the Church is an indication of the struggles for dominance over the medieval State; the Church chose the visual language of political power with which to clothe its representatives, a choice which supported and demonstrated its claim to absolute authority.
When Abbot Martin confronted an Eastern priest for the first time during the sacking of Constantinople in 1204, his confusion was understandable; both churches had seen a divergence in evolution of costume by this period. However, the Latin occupation initiated by this event and the period of Crusades beforehand did not bring the two peoples culturally closer together as one might expect. These events, contrary to what a surface analysis might propose, did not facilitate an exchange of cultural ideas that could be traced in the evolution of both costumes. In fact, during the initial crusades and the occupation of the Byzantine Empire, each culture vehemently defended its own style of dress in a dramatic blockage of cultural information exchange. The inter-relationships between the two clashing cultures who met and lived together in the Near East for two centuries should shed some light on why this was so.
“It is commonly believed by worthy people that the more we see of each other, the more we shall like each other. That is a sad delusion” (Runciman, 15) says Sir Steven Runciman at the opening of his “Byzantium and the Crusades”. It is certainly true that during the Crusade era, when the two cultures were brought face to face with each other, neither liked what they saw. The Latins, who once idolized Byzantine culture, in close range saw their neighbours as snobby and pretentious, while the Byzantines continued to dismissed the Latins as brutish and uncivilized. Therefore, the head-on collision of cultures did not serve to break these stereotypes down or encourage communication, but rather:
…the superiority complex of the Byzantines was in fact aggravated rather than cured by physcial contact with the representatives of the West who arrived in the East in increasing numbers in the twelfth century… The Crusades had magnified the misunderstandings, underlined the points of difference and confirmed the ideological separation between East and West. (Nicol, I:329)
The Byzantines felt particularly threatened by the invading armies, and in the face of this threat they clung to something that they believed underlined their cultural identity and separated them from the Latins: their religion. Thus, “the growing antipathy between Latins and Greeks tended in the spirit of the age to find expression in the public services of the church.” (Geanakoplos, 45), and Greek liturgy, in addition to its religious importance, took on a new cultural meaning. It is likely that the Westerners saw Orthodoxy as integral to Byzantine identity as well; as their own cultures demonstrated a close tie between church and state, they tried for permanent Byzantine political submission through a strategy of forced conversions and plans to abduct Byzantine children to raise in Catholic monasteries (Nichol). Indeed, after the forced conversions took place and the Latins settled into their Eastern occupation, “the religious faith of the Greeks and their sense of ethnicity now reached the point of becoming virtually congruent” (Geanakoplos, 46).
The changes that occurred in Orthodox and Catholic dress during this period, therefore, were not due to an exchange of ideas thanks to the Crusades, but rather to a vehement assertion of difference. The Catholic style included the mitre which, by the early twelfth century, had grown to a straight-lined, triangular shape (Mayo, 35), and remained unchanged, while Byzantine priests continued to go bare-headed. The Catholics also assumed a third layer of tunic: a tunicle placed between the highly decorated dalmatic and the apparel-trimmed alb[2], presumably demonstrating their supreme wealth and power with their rich and costly garments. As for the Orthodox East, Karel Innemée believes that it is during the this exact period that the Eastern enchiron, which strongly resembles the Western maniple, disappears completely, its ceremonial use appropriated entirely by the epigonation (159). Easterners also begin to use more sumptuous fabrics, possibly to emphasize their own power in spite of the Latin presence in their land, and the phenolion shortened in front instead of at the sides in the Latin style. The further divergence of costume during a period of such close encounter signifies the general hostility of each culture towards the other, and the subsequent shut-down of inter-cultural exchange in a period where an assertion of difference indicates not only a difference in religious belief, but also a perceived difference in an underlying cultural identity.
The Byzantines rallied briefly under Michael Palaeologus, throwing the Latins out of Constantinople in 1261, but they would never be restored to their former glory. Although the Western star was in the ascendancy, with the decline of Papal interference in secular affairs and a gradual cultivation of the arts which led to the Renaissance, the East reeled from the disaster of the Latin occupation and weakly fended off the pressing Turkish armies. However, the Byzantines had learned their lesson from the First Crusade well, refused to seek Western assistance in spite of their weakness. In fact, anti-Latin sentiments grew stronger and stronger among most Byzantines, while the Orthodox Church assumed even more of a central role in Byzantine identity:
Now at the very end we see the complete identification of Greek culture, or ethnic identity… with Orthodoxy. Earlier, when Byzantium was politically ascendant, it could afford to translate the liturgy into the native languages of projected converts. Now that it had become almost impotent politically, indeed when it was completely on the defensive, … it had to remain extremely wary of any foreign and especially Latin advances – and this even when it seemed that without foreign aid the empire would surely fall. (Geanakoplos, 46-7)
As the Catholic demand in return for military support was supplication to the Catholic church, Byzantines not surprisingly saw any appeal to the West as compromising their religious and cultural identity. Thus the statement by a Greek prelate: “I will not accept the filioque[3] and be Latinized” (in Geanakoplos, 48), or the Grand Admiral who proclaimed, “Better the turban of the Turk in Constantinople than the tiara of the Pope” (in Geanakoplos, 47). Tbus, a Renaissance of sorts flourished among the Byzantine laity, with a strong emphasis on traditionalism, Greek heritage, and Orthodoxy, in spite of the crumbling status of the Empire.
In contrast, certain members of the ruling classes clearly saw Byzantine salvation in the hands of the West. Emperors, Patriarchs, and higher officials saw all too well the benefits of supplication to the Pope, particularly in the face of considerable pressure from attacking Turks and the threat of another Crusade from Rome – neither of which the Empire could have survived. This caused a substantial split in Byzantine ranks, as the overwhelming majority ostracized the Latinophrons (Latin-minded ones), and saw them as deserting Byzantium instead of working for the survival of the Empire (Geanakoplos, 46-8; Nicol I:331-8). This is clearly evident in the story of Michael VIII, the Emperor who promised Orthodox submission to Catholic universal authority at the Council of Lyons in 1274 in exchange for Papal aid against the threatening Franks: his own people denied him a Christian burial. Diplomats or members of the intelligentsia who courted Western support were yelled at in the street: “Frangos kathestekas!”[4]. When the Empire finally fell to the Turks, most citizens attributed their Empire’s disintegration to the heretical action of the Council of Florence a decade or so earlier, at which their own patriarch and Emperor “signed away the orthodoxy of their Church” (Nichol, I:333).
With this political situation in mind, it is interesting to see the developing use of a particular item of clothing, the sakkos. This ceremonial robe was originally only worn by the Emperor on special occasion, and it was only “in exceptional cases that Emperors allowed Patriarchs and hierarchs to wear it”[5]. This garment has been in wider use since the sixteenth century, at which point Bishops were allowed to wear it (Houston, 166), and it gradually replaced the phelonion as the outer garment in the Orthodox Church. I would propose that it was during this period that the Emperors and Patriarchs began to use the sakkos more regularly.
Why should this hypothesis be considered? First of all, in the past, Emperor and Patriarch were almost diametrically opposed in their traditional vestments. Only if the Emperor and Patriarch were allied or equated in some way could they share such richly symbolic, ceremonial costume. It during this period alone in Byzantine history that we see a close association between Emperor and Patriarch, as they worked hand in hand and against the will of the public, believing they could secure the fate of their people by courting the Catholic West. In addition, the loss of Byzantine territory had weakened the Emperor’s power, while the conversion of the Russians and Slavs to Orthodoxy had boosted the power of the patriarchate: thus, “contrary to earlier times, the patriarch had become in effect the protector of the Emperor.”[6] This fact allows for a further association between the Emperor and the Patriarch, which may have been made visible in costume. And finally, it should be noted that Orthodox vestment has remained essentially unchanged for almost a millennium: it would require a significant change in the position of the Patriarchate to necessitate the introduction of a new vestment. This change in position can not only be seen in the Patriarch’s new equality with the Emperor, but also in the supplication to the Western church, which was not only completely unique to the history of Byzantium but also unique to these extremely high-echelon positions. Place the ornate sakkos over the traditional Orthodox dalmatic, and the result is a striking similarity to the layered, decorated tunics worn by Catholic clergy.
A further area of costume imitation might be seen in the development of the Byzantine Imperial pallium, the rectangular panel draped over the Emperor’s front and back. This would be in the addition of two straps encircling the shoulders, securing the costume across the upper chest. The resulting T-shaped design is seen in a depiction of Andronicus Palaeologus, a late thirteenth century Emperor who was not only married to Catholic women, but married his sons to Catholics as well (Nichol, IV). It bears a remarkable resemblance to the T shape of the Western ecclesiastical pallium, which was, by now, granted only by the Pope and had become a symbol of significant status in the West (Houston, 140).
Ironically, this would indicate a circular influence of Byzantine costume: from East to West and back to East again. Because of a sad neglect of Byzantine costume history, it is not possible to confirm this theory without further study of primary sources. However, given the sources I have examined, the information I have gathered on both costume and cultural history, and the relationship between the Emperor and the Patriarch and the West at the time, I do not believe my hypotheses to be entirely incredible.
One final word must be said about the development of the Eastern mitra. We have already seen the Western mitre develop through the eleventh century into the triangular cap worn from the twelfth century onwards. As this costume element would have been present during the crusades, a surface analysis might deem the Eastern mitra a product of intercultural exchange. However, before jumping to this conclusion, it is important to note that Orthodox priests, in contrast to Eastern heads of state, went bareheaded (Piltz). The mitra, in fact, “was assumed by the Patriarch of Constantinople as representing the sovereignty after the Turkish conquest in 1453” (Houston, 170). A comparison of the mitra with the Imperial crown, particularly the crowns of the Palaeologan Emperors, will indeed produce an amazing similarity.
Why should the Patriarch adopt the Emperor’s distinctive headdress? When Sultan Mohammed II entered Constantinople in 1453, he gave the Patriarch of Constantinople full religious privileges, as well as general authority over the nation of the Greeks, subject only to the his veto (Geanakoplos, 50). Thus, the role of the Patriarch finally consumed and replaced the role of the Byzantine Emperor. Recall as well that, by this time, Eastern Orthodoxy and Greek/Byzantine culture were considered “coterminous” (Geanakoplos, 52). Therefore, the Patriarch became a figurehead of and for a former Byzantine culture during the Tourkokratia; his appropriation of the Emperor’s headdress ties Greek culture, Byzantine Imperialism, and Eastern Orthodoxy in a remarkable display of the final merge between Eastern ethnic identity and Orthodoxy.
An analysis of the history of the relations between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox cultures has revealed an intricate and involved movement of ideas between the two groups. In essence, the development of both sets of costumes reflects this history of inter-cultural relations between the Byzantine and Holy Roman Empires. Certainly the influence of East on West can be seen during a period of stability in the Byzantine Empire and an early stage of development in Western Europe, and I believe that a reciprocal influence may be seen at a later stage of history, when the situations of the two powers are reversed.
It is interesting to note, in conclusion, that the styles evolved by each church during this period become fundamental to church vestment at a later date. Although the clothing of Western nobility recovered from its brief Byzantine craze, the Catholic Church held on to its costume as ‘traditional’; it ignored its Byzantine-via-Frankish roots and circulated a myth about its descent from Levitical costume to plead authenticity (Tyack, 2; Mayo, 27). We have already seen traditional church clothing became synonymous with the preservation of Greek culture throughout the Turkish occupation. The result of these firm traditions is that nothing much in the way of radical change is seen on either side after the fifteenth century. Although the twentieth century pope and patriarch lifted their thousand year-old mutual excommunications to herald a new era of peace between the two Christiandoms, they continue to literally ‘wear their hearts on their sleeves’; even today, church vestments reflect the effects of a fascinating history of intercultural exchange between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.
As many of the terms used in Greek and Roman costume are synonymous or confusing, here is a brief glossary for the sake of reference.
n Alb Western name for the white under-tunic. Later decorated at hem and cuffs
n Alba camisa Early German form of the dalmatic, worn over a tunicella
n Chasuble large cape-like garment pulled over the head. Starts out full and round, ends up shortened at the sides in the West and shortened in the front in the East, highly decorated.
n Clavi Decorative squares and patches
n Cope later huge cape worn in Western ecclesiastical ceremony
n Dalmatic Square, large sleeved, over-tunic. Usually highly decorated.
n Enchiron Eastern form of maniple – hand held scarf.
n Epigonation Diamond-shaped decorated pendant, hangs from Orthodox priest’s waist.
n Epitrachelion Eastern ‘stole’ – scarf draped around the neck under chasuble
n Mitra Eastern mitre adopted after Turkish conquest
n Mitre Western archbishop’s hat
n Pallium What’s left of the Roman toga stripe. This was a scarf wrapped around the body in one of various ways, becoming a fully sewn circle in the West and looking like a tabard in the lay version in the East. In the West, it’s now only granted by the Pope.
n Paludamentum Imperialis Special cape adopted by Frankish upper class
n Paludamentum Special cape worn by Byzantine upper class
n Phenolion Eastern name for the chasuble
n Sakkos Eastern garment reserved for Emperors but sometimes granted to patriarchs. See figure 14.
n Segmentae Decorative patches
n Sticharion Byzantine ecclesiastical word for dalmatic – simple, with only two potamoi
n Superhumeral Byzantine decorated ‘plate’ encasing upper shoulders and chest.
n Surplice Under-everything-tunic demanded for Western clergy
n Tabard Rectangular panel slipped over the head and hanging on front and back. Worn most often by western monks over their cassocks.
n Tunica Used as under-dress. Later becomes highly decorated.
n Tunicella German under-tunic; also later extra dalmatic worn by Western clergy
Dearmer, Percy, Rev. The Ornaments of the Ministers. London: Mowbray & Co., 1908.
Deno John Geanakoplos. Interaction of the “Sibling” Byzantine and Western Cultures in the Middle Ages and Italian Renaissance (330-1600). New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976.
Grabar, Oleg. “Patterns and Ways of Cultural Exchange” The Meeting of Two Worlds: Cultural Exchange between East and West during the Period of the Crusades. Ed. Vladimir Goss. Studies in Medieval Culture, XXI. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Western Michigan University, 1986. 441-446.
Hanawalt, Emily Albu. “Norman Views of Eastern Christendom: From the First Crusade to the Principality of Antioch”. The Meeting of Two Worlds: Cultural Exchange between East and West during the Period of the Crusades. Ed. Vladimir Goss. Studies in Medieval Culture, XXI. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Western Michigan University, 1986. 115-122.
“The History of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.” Available at <http://www.patriarchate.org> (20 November 1999).
Houston, Mary G. Ancient Greek, Roman and Byzantine Costume and Decoration. 2nd ed. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1947.
Innemée, Karel C. Ecclesiastical Dress in the Medieval Near East. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992.
Mayo, Janet. A History of Ecclesiastical Dress. New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers, 1984.
Nicol, Donald M. “Byzantium and the Papacy in the Eleventh Century.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History, XIII. 1962. Rpt. as Chapter II in Byzantium: its ecclesiastical history and relations with the western world. London: Variorum Reprints, 1972. 1-20.
Nicol, Donald M. “Mixed Marriages in Byzantium in the Thirteenth Century.” Studies in Church History, I. 1964. Rpt. as Chapter IV in Byzantium: its ecclesiastical history and relations with the western world. London: Variorum Reprints, 1972.
Nicol, Donald M. “The Byzantine View of Western Europe.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies VIII. 1967. Rpt. as Chapter I in Byzantium: its ecclesiastical history and relations with the western world. London: Variorum Reprints, 1972. 315-339.
Noonan, James Charles Jr. The Church Visible: The Ceremonial Life and Protocol of the Roman Catholic Church. New York: Penguin Ltd, 1996.
Piltz, Elisabeth. Le costume officiel des dignitaires byzantins à l’époque Paléologue. Uppsala: MediaPrint Uddevalla AB, 1994.
Runciman, Sir Steven. “Byzantium and the Crusades”. The Meeting of Two Worlds: Cultural Exchange between East and West during the Period of the Crusades. Ed. Vladimir Goss. Studies in Medieval Culture, XXI. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Western Michigan University, 1986. 15-22.
Tortora, Phyllis and Keith Eubank. Survey of Historic Costume: A History of Western Dress. 3rd. ed. New York: Fairchild Publications, 1998.
Tyack, George, Rev. Historic Dress of the Clergy. London: Andrews & Co, 1897.
[1] Text reproduced in: Petry, Roy C. A History of Christianity.
[2] It is notable that the practice of decorating the alb with embroidered squares, recalling the segmentae preferred by the Byzantine élite, became widespread in the eleventh to thirteenth centuries (Mayo, 45; Percy, 39).
[3] The filioque was a major item of theological discord between Catholic and Orthodox doctrine. As such, it came to summarize and symbolize the distinct and different doctrines of each church.
[4] ‘You have become a Frank!’ Geanakoplos, 46; Nichol, I:338
[5] http://www.patriarchate.org/ecumenical_patriarchate/chapter_3/Hierarchical_vestments.html
[6] from “The History of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople”.