Graham's Magazine published this plate (originally engraved for Le Follet) in 1846, but alas! they didn't print the description that must have accompanied the original plate. That means we can only guess at the details of the garments depicted—we get the general picture, but we have no idea how they were constructed or of what materials they were made.
At first glance these dresses appear to be a study on contrasts. The costume on the left is clearly an evening dress (probably a ball gown) while the one on the right is as clearly a day dress (possibly a visiting dress?) The ball gown is decorated with (what I assume to be) artificial roses, and appears to be made in light, fragile materials. The day dress appears to be made of darker, sturdier fabrics, and it is definitely more modest. While the ball gown bares the wearer's arms and shoulders, the model in the day dress is entirely covered except for her neck and the front of her face!
A second look, however, shows us how much the two garments have in common, particularly their underlying structure and shape. Both dresses, for example, have long pointed waists, a look achieved by the wearing of corsets that moulded the figure from armpits to hips. (You can see the ridge created by the upper edge of the corset quite clearly on the figure on the right.) Then there are the bell-shaped skirts, fashionable from the mid-1830s through to the mid-1850s. At this stage the skirts weren't held out by hoops: instead they were given bulk by the many layers of petticoats worn underneath them. One was usually made from horsehair, hence the word "crinoline"—from the French crin, meaning horsehair—later applied to the hooped petticoat that replaced it!
No comments:
Post a Comment