-----Original Message----- <<<<I thought the thinner looking area was a trimming, but since such trimmings were usually embroidered or made of lace, it's more likely that you're right and the transparency difference indicates an underlying undergarment of some kind.
I find that interesting. I know that people (such as Oonagh) have theorized that late period Italian gowns were worn with corsets, and that there had to be either a second shift underneath the corset, or, in the alternative, that the camisia lay under the corset and a false front imitating a camisia was pinned on top, to show underneath the lacing and hide the corset. However, I'd never thought that the gowns of the 1530s (such as the one under discussion seemed to be) particularly looked as though they were worn with a corset. Thanks for your explanation. -- Cathy Raymond <[email protected]>>>>>> In my opinion, I don't think that she has a PoB or corset. I think that the gown is the main support but I think that maybe some shifts in this period may have been laced in the back or sides to make it a bit snug to add some support, especially if the woman was endowed with vast tracks of land. :) The shift under the camicia makes a bit of sense with for modesty. Though one has to wonder about modesty when they see this painting. http://realmofvenus.renaissanceitaly.net/wardrobe/CarianiAlbani.jpg Is it a bordello (sp?) De _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list [email protected] http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
