Emma, this is definitely not underwear and it has nothing to do with Salome herself. It's more of a fad among the well-to-do, from roughly 1470 to 1500, in Spain. My guess is that the artist used this style of dress to indicate that Salome was a lady of high rank. (My Bible dictionary says that she was the king's stepdaughter; she danced for the king and his dinner guests so probably NOT naked.)
There's a nice book on Spanish costume, entitled [strangely enough] "Hispanic Costume 1480- 1530" by R. M. Anderson (1979), where the author has pulled together artwork of the period and grouped it by garment type to show the development of styles. It's a great place to get started if you're interested in this era. Suzanne > Date: June 10, 2008 10:43:20 AM CDT > To: Historical Costume <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [h-cost] Farthingale thoughts > Reply-To: Historical Costume <[email protected]> > > > I was looking at the painting of Salome (top left, http:// > www.elizabethancostume.net/farthingale/history.html ) that is > generally accepted as one of the earliest forms of farthingale/ > virtugarde/verdugados. I've heard the "Look, first the hoops were > worn on the outside, but very quickly they became an underskirt and > hidden" interpretation. I was thinking about the allegorical > aspect of religious art. > > Salome was supposed to have danced naked before she asked for the > head of John the Baptist. > > Is it possible that the artist depicted Salome in her underwear to > hint at this nakedness, and that hoops were never actually worn on > the outside? (if that's true, why are hoops also visible on the > ladies behind her?) Are there any other depictions, anywhere, of > hoops on the outside? > > Any thoughts? > > Emma _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list [email protected] http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
