I'm knee deep in the latter quarter of the 18th century for events in July. But what happens when you get to the 1790s? Apparently, anything you like.
I'm exaggerating, but it was a strange time, both in life as well as in fashion, and one is a reflection of the other.
The short version is that French society finally became sick of the vast inequalities between the aristocracy and themselves and overthrew the monarchy in what is known as the French Revolution. This happened circa 1793. Before this, fitted gowns reigned supreme, big bums, back pleats, and polonaise'd skirts. We get to 1793 and everything changes.
By this point in history Paris firmly led the way in European fashion. With the revolution there was a new status quo, and fashion began to reflect this. There was a growing interest in ancient civilisations, Rome and Greece, the delicate drapery, the abundance of curly hair flying every which way. By 1793 waistlines were beginning to rise above the natural position. This was a gradual ascent until we reach the empire lines of the regency period.
Let's start in 1793.Waistlines are creeping towards the bust, raised from the natural waist which they've been at for nearly a century. Round gowns, the type of dress that has a closed-front bodice and attached closed-front petticoat, are shoving the anglaise's and Italian gowns out of the way. The robe en chemise is being altered for the higher waistline.
Skirts are full, gathered all the way around. In fact, the fuller the better. The pregnant look reigns supreme. Women want boobs again. The rigid boned stays of previous decades are giving way to stays with less boning, and gussets to allow for boob-age (this is totally a word). The thrusty-ness of the 1780s is still fashionable, and in less than a decade the boobs will be elevated well above their natural position.
It's actually quite difficult to date fashion plates and extant garments from the 1790s, in my humble opinion. Since I was doing research into this time period it was difficult to tell what was from the later 1790s and what was from 1793.
The above is circa 1791, which fits because these are both perfect examples of fashionable gowns at the end of the 1780s. The lady on the left has what appears to be a chemise a la reine hybrid gown (if it has a name, please educate me). It's gathered at the waist and neck, and has long, tight-fitting sleeves. The lady on the right has a zone-front Pierrot, with awesome tail. Both sport a hedgehog hairstyle, again from the 1780s. Most importantly, the waistline is still in its natural position.
The way I see it is fashion doesn't change overnight, it's a gradual progression from one thing to another, an evolution. 1793 doesn't just come around and all of a sudden waistlines are right under the bust. If we remember that fabric was an expensive commodity in the 18th century, with many gowns and garments being refitted or re-purposed for someone else. There are many examples of this on extant garments, when francaises have been turned into anglaises, Italian gowns turned into closed round gowns. Hence, it's not unbelievable that women took garments like the above and altered them for a slightly higher waistline.
The next point I can give examples of is 1795. My 1790s pinterest board is sparse because it seems to be quite difficult to date the transition period between the natural waistlines and the full empire. As I said, fashion doesn't change overnight. The 1790s themselves are "transitional" years bridging the gap between the tight fitting Georgian fashions to the empire waisted, delicate regency gowns. So I'm trying to find an elusive transitional period within a transitional period. Does your head hurt, too?
 |
| apparently from 1798 |
 |
| circa. 1795 |
 |
| dated: 1795-1800 |
The above are all dated, roughly, from early to mid 1790s, and they're perfect examples of my point. Most of them aren't empire waisted, but somewhere between the waist and underbust. We can also see that the skirts are quite full, and don't worry, they get fuller.
We can also see early incarnations of the Spencer jacket, both with sleeves and without. I actually prefer these versions to the Regency ones. I know they're very similar, but there's something much nicer about these in my opinion.
The ones I could find a date for say 1795, and other examples I've found of the 1790s fashion all date from the latter third of the decade, roughly from 1797-1800. By this time the waistline is fully under the bust, and skirts have become fabulously full.
The above are all very similar to each other in regards to style, but I guess that's what happens.
Fabric is another difference about this transitional period. It seems to me that printed cottons, and silk brocades were used more in the 1790s than later years when simplicity reigned. As I said previously, women altered gowns to fit fashions, so the above are most likely alterations from the late 1780s, possibly even earlier when printed cottons and silk brocades were still in fashion. The robe en chemise is really the only plain garment before these. The fashion for flow-y, graceful fabrics also hasn't kicked in, hence some of these gowns are made from stiff fabrics like taffeta.
The fashion plate above also gives a glimpse into how hair is changing. Gone are the gorgeous hedgehogs, replaced by turbans, head wraps, and locks of disarrayed natural curls.
It's not until 1799 and into the early 1800s that the fashion for the infamous white dresses we all associate with the regency period really come into full swing. I should mention that fashion plates will have been references, but there will obviously be variations. Silk was certainly still used, but the Grecian/Roman influence is firmly in its way by 1800, so light material is perhaps more common than the silks seen above.
Printed cotton is also something that changes. it never falls out of fashion, but the large, bold prints of the 1780s and before make way for delicate, small prints. The period from 1800 to about 1820 s definitely a minimal period. Extant gowns aren't trimmed to the nines, and hair also becomes a lot simpler than the hedgehogs of the 1780s and the ridiculousness that is the 1820s/30s.
Let's get back to the 1790s though. We know so far that waistlines raised gradually, and the spencer jacket begins to become fashionable. The bib-front gown also starts to emerge, which I think owes its existence to the round gowns of the previous decade. I want to focus specifically on Spencers. For me, 1790s gowns are all a bit...similar. It feels like they're all just gathered necklines and waistlines. There's no variation in construction or look. Accessories were used instead.
The reason I zoned in on spencers was this extant garment everyone will be familiar with.
I love red, it's no secret, and this has been on my to make list for a few years. I actually have a red silk taffeta in the stash left over from an 1860s project. Another blogger has also re-created it in cotton, but can't remember the blog's name. This entire ensemble is lovely, and seems to be from that sweet spot I was talking about earlier, the transitional period in a transitional period.
Then I found another extant red silk Spencer.
My luck allowed me to find another 1790s spencer, and it's definitely on my to make list.
What can I say? I'm a sucker for tails on jackets.
My plan is to make a round gown, the generic gathered at the waist and neckline, made of printed Indian cotton voile (I know, turns out there are people who still make block painted fabrics!). As for the silk, the leftover red taffeta I have is earmarked for another project, and I didn't want to fork out for silk, especially considering how hot it can get. The next best thing, in my mind, was cotton satin. Instead of red, like above, I opted for a navy blue (although don't think I wasn't super tempted by crimson).
So, what do we do about the 1790s? We can research until we're blue in the face, we can look at fashion plates and assume that everyone followed them, and we can look at extant garments and make the same conclusions, but in reality it was a time of transition, of great political and societal change. The true answer is that we can do whatever we want, because the ladies of the 1790s certainly did.
