Today's lesson...
Never ask a question you know you're not going to like the answer to. ;)
So, over on my personal journal, I put the following portrait up for discussion:
My gut feeling has always been from the moment I set eyes on this portrait, that the yellow garment is what I am fond of calling a "jacket", not a zimorra (ie. loose gown) or a doublet. However, Florentine fashion is not my comfort zone, so I was concerned I was inflicting my Elizabethan sensibilities on fashion that was popular half a world away. And when people weighed in on the issue, it seemed to confirm that I was, in fact, doing just that.
But discussing it a bit more in depth with a friend of mine, I realized I really didn't want to accept the popular judgement of "not a jacket" and I actually had reasons for it, other than "I really want it to be a jacket." :)
It basically comes down to three issues:
First, is fit. The yellow garment is fitted to the body, whereas loose gowns are, well, loose. That does beg the question as to whether the garment could therefore be a fitted overgown, but I'll explain my issues with that next...
Second, is the issue of sleeve treatment. Over gowns were fitted, yes, but they typically followed the same fashion as doublets, with contrasting sleeves (which could be part of the under gown). The yellow garment has sleeves that are clearly the same as the rest of it.
Third, is embellishment. We're talking last quarter of the 16th century, and by that time zimorra, over gowns, and doublets are heavily trimmed. Not only that, but the shoulder treatments on all three garments are extremely elaborate. The yellow garment has simple sleeves, a tiny epaulette on the shoulder and is sparingly trimmed along all the seams... Which is really, really reminiscent of late Elizabethan jackets, if I dare say so.
Edited to add: Examples of zimarra, over gown, and doublet (which might actually be more of an over gown, but it's hard to tell if the skirt and bodice are matching or just complementary).
So, there's this yellow gown which doesn't follow any of the conventions listed above, and yes, that doesn't exactly prove that we're talking about a different garment, but it does suggest that this might be a different garment. But is it a jacket? Unfortunately for me, there's no way of telling for certain unless I can find supporting evidence in another primary source. Sigh.
There's another option, of course, and that's to think of this like an Elizabethan looking at a foreign portrait... What would an Elizabethan think this garment is? Well, my highly developed Elizabethan eye sees a jacket, so I could always say I'm just some dorky Englishwoman who has no idea what she's really looking at and simply defaults to what she's used to. That would make this not so much a recreation of a Florentine portrait, but an Anglicized interpretation of a Florentine outfit... Which, as far as the SCA is concerned, is over thinking everything to the nth degree. :P
So, over on my personal journal, I put the following portrait up for discussion:
My gut feeling has always been from the moment I set eyes on this portrait, that the yellow garment is what I am fond of calling a "jacket", not a zimorra (ie. loose gown) or a doublet. However, Florentine fashion is not my comfort zone, so I was concerned I was inflicting my Elizabethan sensibilities on fashion that was popular half a world away. And when people weighed in on the issue, it seemed to confirm that I was, in fact, doing just that.
But discussing it a bit more in depth with a friend of mine, I realized I really didn't want to accept the popular judgement of "not a jacket" and I actually had reasons for it, other than "I really want it to be a jacket." :)
It basically comes down to three issues:
First, is fit. The yellow garment is fitted to the body, whereas loose gowns are, well, loose. That does beg the question as to whether the garment could therefore be a fitted overgown, but I'll explain my issues with that next...
Second, is the issue of sleeve treatment. Over gowns were fitted, yes, but they typically followed the same fashion as doublets, with contrasting sleeves (which could be part of the under gown). The yellow garment has sleeves that are clearly the same as the rest of it.
Third, is embellishment. We're talking last quarter of the 16th century, and by that time zimorra, over gowns, and doublets are heavily trimmed. Not only that, but the shoulder treatments on all three garments are extremely elaborate. The yellow garment has simple sleeves, a tiny epaulette on the shoulder and is sparingly trimmed along all the seams... Which is really, really reminiscent of late Elizabethan jackets, if I dare say so.
Edited to add: Examples of zimarra, over gown, and doublet (which might actually be more of an over gown, but it's hard to tell if the skirt and bodice are matching or just complementary).
So, there's this yellow gown which doesn't follow any of the conventions listed above, and yes, that doesn't exactly prove that we're talking about a different garment, but it does suggest that this might be a different garment. But is it a jacket? Unfortunately for me, there's no way of telling for certain unless I can find supporting evidence in another primary source. Sigh.
There's another option, of course, and that's to think of this like an Elizabethan looking at a foreign portrait... What would an Elizabethan think this garment is? Well, my highly developed Elizabethan eye sees a jacket, so I could always say I'm just some dorky Englishwoman who has no idea what she's really looking at and simply defaults to what she's used to. That would make this not so much a recreation of a Florentine portrait, but an Anglicized interpretation of a Florentine outfit... Which, as far as the SCA is concerned, is over thinking everything to the nth degree. :P