The Robe à la Piémontaise

-

A while back, when I added all of the MFA's Gallerie des Modes plates (minus the ones that are quartered to show four hairstyles) to my fashion history Pinterest boards, I made some non-decade boards where I could group 18th century extant garments, plates, etc. by type.  One group was just "misc", as I had only one image described with a particular term.  One of these was the robe à la piémontaise.


Every page that I can find that mentions this type of dress is in agreement that the piémontaise was (to be brief) a française with detached pleats.  But I'm not really sure where that comes from.  The most recent scholarly reference I can find is in Dress in France in the Eighteenth Century, but I am unable to read the citation as the Google Books preview cuts out all but one page of the endnotes.  (If anyone could tell me what is cited there, I would be very pleased.)  Prior to that - going back in time chronologically - is Dress in Ireland, by Mairead Dunlevy; I can't actually see the whole sentence, but the piémontaise is listed with the française and the anglaise as "versions of early eighteenth-century silk sack-back robes," which makes me not think much of it as a source - the anglaise is not related to the française, and why list the piémontaise there as though it were as prominent?  20,000 Years of Fashion gives the standard definition of independent back pleats.  Then there is Marybelle Bigelow's Fashion in History, but I pointed out a few myths about Greek dress in her work in my symposium paper, so I can't take her word for it.  And that is as far back as it seems to go.  (As far as I can tell on Google Books, anyway.)

I'm certainly not trying to point fingers at people for going along with what established scholars have said, and I'm not trying to say that this plate is necessarily correct, that the piémontaise was definitely a gown with a back cut like a française and a skirt cut like a polonaise.  But this is the only image I've seen that has a picture and labels it "piémontaise", and I can't find any contemporary written descriptions of it.  So where did the standard definition come from, and why is it so dominant?

Addendum: I linked to La Couture Parisienne as an example of the "detached pleats" definition of the piémontaise; however, the gown pictured does also fit with the fashion plate's definition in that the skirt seems to have rounded front corners and is trimmed all the way around, and is draped up.

Edited to add: It is rather embarrassing, but I must admit that I am entirely incorrect on this matter.  The fashion plate and description is far from being posted as of this moment (book 13, plate 6) but it is quite explicit that the piémontaise has detached pleats which are fastened to the collar of the gown.  Still, now we have a primary source to cite in support of the definition, rather than a loop of secondary and tertiary ones!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Pride and Prejudice 1995: The Little Things

-
Image
I did threaten to write about the Ehle/Firth Pride and Prejudice , and since I'm in a writing mood without a topic I decided to make good. Regency adaptations tend to go for an overall accurate look, interpreting age and income within the confines of realistic silhouettes and colors, and so they avoid the scrutiny and reputation that a more obviously artistic and unrealistic production garners. But just as this version of P&P  is not entirely faithful in every respect (e.g. the added Darcy-perspective scenes, the actors nearly all being significantly older than their characters - perhaps the most egregious example being Julia Sawalha in her late twenties playing teenage Lydia), Dinah Hill's costuming is not entirely accurate - mainly in ways that make the period more appealing to modern tastes. The exact date when the story is set is never given; generally, the movie's taken to be set in 1813, when the book was published. I'm not going to go into the full story of...
Read more

A Difficult History: Corsetry and Feminism, Part One

-
Image
Recently, I began following a couple of Tumblr blogs focusing on waist training and daily corset wear. Daily wear is not for me, waist training even less so, but I find it an interesting practice. It is also a controversial one. For example, a recent Huffington Post article, " Corset Queen Penny Brown Loves Getting 'Waisted' ," drew comments which were nearly all extremely negative, as do most articles that bring the practice to mainstream attention. Usually, the mental states of the women who waist-train are called into question, and there are numerous references to feminism as incompatible with corsets. The general idea is that the first wave feminists of the late 19th and early 20th century would be horrified by women today wearing them, and that their assumed reaction is an objective statement on the practice. My feeling is that the subject is complex, and cannot be simply declared feminist or unfeminist. There are far more factors than the average internet comm...
Read more

Pattern Time: 1860s Chemise

-
Image
For my 150th post ( \o/ ), a quick little pattern someone might find useful. When I was working my way through a box a few weeks ago, I came across a chemise that didn't quite want to lay flat.  I took a closer look at it to figure out why, and noticed that it had a unique construction with the sleeves cut in one with the body and gussets inserted in the neckline.  I did a really quick sketch of the cutting layout and measured the important bits, so that when I got home I could draw it up in proportion on graph paper. (nb. I messed up. I've been noticing it for a while, but didn't want to point it out from shame, but I accidentally gave the neckline length as it is when gathered - the horizontal cut should be much longer, to within about four inches of the side seam. Please correct for this when making your own version.)
Read more