Five years ago I wrote a post about chemise a la reine (also known as gaulle) dresses, and what was worn under them based on how they are depicted in paintings of the 1780s & 90s.
Unfortunately that post is one of the ones that has fallen victim to the Photobucket 3rd party hosting debacle, so I pulled it. I’ve had quite a few requests for it since. I decided that as long as I was going to go to the effort of finding and replacing all my images, I should update the entire post. I’ve learned a lot about chemise and 18th century undergarments since I originally wrote the post – hopefully I can make more educated guesses. However, the 18th century is still not my area of study and expertise, so my guesses are just that, and not an expert opinion. I’ve posted them to give people food for thought, and a jumping off point for more research of their own.
So what was worn under a chemise a la reine? Obviously you’d start with a chemise/shift (basically a slip) as the base layer, but what about the support layer?
Did did women wear stiffer boned stays? Soft stays or jumps? Bust separating stays? Or leave off a support garment altogether?
Did what a woman chose to wear under chemise a la reine change over time? Was it based on the style of chemise, and the formality?
In an attempt to, if not fully answer those questions, at least shed some further light on the topic, I’ve looked at a couple dozen period paintings of women wearing chemise a la reine, and made my best guess as to what they were wearing under their chemise.
This post is entirely speculative. These are paintings, and the artists may have taken considerable license in their depiction of the wearer’s figure, to suit their own taste, and fashionable standards. Age and time have changed the shadows on some paintings, leading to an inaccurate depiction. And in many paintings the posture, garments, and details lend themselves to multiple readings of what was worn underneath. In making my guesses I simply hope to lead to further thought, inspection, and a robust discussion of late 18th century undergarments.
I’ve sorted the paintings by category of undergarment: stiffer boned stays; bust separating stays; au naturel. The paintings are arranged chronologically within each category.
With some paintings I’ve attempted to find an extant example of the type of undergarment I think the sitter was wearing.
Stiffer bone stays:
My best guess is that the women depicted in the paintings in this category are wearing stiffer boned stays – not the fully boned stays common in the mid-18th century, but the so-called ‘half-boned stays’.
Stays of the 1780s & ’90s were shorter in the waist than their earlier counterparts, and often lifted the bust out, rather than up.
Madame du Barry by Élisabeth Vigee Le Brun, 1781 via Wikimedia Commons
I suspect Madame du Barry is wearing something like the stays below. Other portraits of du Barry indicate that she was fairly full-busted. The low neckline of these stays sits below the nipple line, so would give the sharp lower-bust angle, with roundness above, shown in du Barry’s portrait.
However, because we see her torso in side view we can’t tell if there is a separation between her breasts, so she might be wearing bust-separating stays.
Stays, 1780s, Abiti Antichi
There is no mistaking that very upright torso and lifted cleavage. The Princesse de Lamballe is wearing boned stays. Lamballe was known as a bit of a prude in the French court, so a stiffer, more formal style of undergarment would match that assessment. However, she was painted essentially topless, so standards of prudery may vary a lot…
Élisabeth Vigee Le Brun, Martine-Gabrielle-Yoland de Polastron (1745—1793), duchesse de Polignac , 1783, Waddesdon Manor – National Trust
Polignac was famously small and slight (she was nicknamed ‘Little Po’ in England). Her portraits show a small busted woman. This is the more formal of the two Le Brun portraits of Polignac in a chemise dress. Her torso is quite erect, and there is no bust separation, so she’s probably wearing stays.
Antoine Vestier, Portrait of a Lady with a Book, Next to a River Source, ca 1785
Vestier’s lady, in her very fancy striped silk transitional chemise a la reine, has quite a confusing bustline and upper silhouette. Her narrow torso and extremely erect posture, along with her compressed decolletage, definitely indicate stays. However, there appear to be two separate dent lines along her bust: one right as her striped dress ends, and another an inch or two below it. There is also the suggestion of a solid, opaque garment beneath the two sheer visible layers. You can see the line where it ends on her bust. Is it an overdress, or are we seeing the curve of stays like these?
Stays, Great Britain, 1780-1789 (made), Linen, hand sewn with linen thread, applied ribbon, chamois and whalebone, Victoria & Albert Museum, T.172-1914
Miss Kitty Calcraft, 1787, by George Romney, Brigham Young University Museum of Art, Provo, UT, 840002300
I’m having trouble figuring out what is going on in this portrait. Is she holding something in the crook of her arm, or is the brown space behind her seen through the space created by her arm and waist? That changes whether you see this as a chemise worn over relatively stiff stays, or one where her bust is very slightly separated.
Portrait of Anne Rodbard, Mrs. Blackburn, 1787-88, George Romney
This portrait of Anne Rodbard unambiguously shows her wearing stays. The stiff prow-front line is the unmistakable result of something like the ones above, or the first pair I posted.
Jacques-Louis David, Portrait of Monsieur de Lavoisier and his Wife, chemist Marie-Anne Pierrette Paulze, 1788, Metropolitan Museum of Art
The line of Paulze’s torso and bodice is quite rigid, and the way she is leaning on her husband is a comfortable, and instinctive, body position if you are wearing stays. She’s most likely wearing something similar to du Barry, as there seems to be a fairly low inward curve at the turn of the bust, but she might be wearing a slightly longer pair, such as these:
Stays, England, 1770-1790, Silk damask, lined with linen, reinforced with whalebone, hand-sewn, Victoria & Albert Museum, T.909-1913
The beautiful details of Paulze’s outfit in David’s painting also give us another clue about undergarments: the pocket slit on her light gauzy chemise a la reine is falling open to reveal a silk under-layer, indicating that she’s wearing a full silk dress underneath, which would hide the lines and colours of her stays (possibly not if they were cherry red like the example above!).
Countess Anna Protassowa with niece by Angelica Kauffmann, 1788
This one was quite hard. There is a faint suggestion of bust-separation, but that might just be the folds of the fabric. Chemise a la reine do fasten up the front with a simple opening tied at the top, leading to extra folds to hide the opening The way the chemise falls over the sash and then goes straight up from it looks just like what my chemise looks like over stays on me. Finally her very upright posture and the way her niece leans in to her suggest boned undergarments to me.
Lady Lemon (1747—1823) (Jane Buller) by George Romney, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1975.1.235
I find Romney’s portrait of Lady Lemon to be one of the most fascinating depictions of chemise a la reine, at least when it comes to undergarments. It might be a trick of the way the fabric is depicted, but there is a definite suggestion of a darker set of stays seen through the dress. Additionally the former Miss Buller appears to have a very curvaceous figure. The painting accurately depicts how gaulles were not always the most flattering dress style on those blessed with tiny waists and full busts. The effect isn’t particularly attractive, but does make it fairly clear that a stiff, low cut set of stays was worn under the dress.
Thomas and Anna Maria Jenkins by Angelica Kauffmann, date unknown
It’s hard to tell exactly what this dress is, but it’s most likely an open skirted chemise a la reine. Notice the open front with the lacy petticoat. Anna’s arm hides most of her torso. There does seem to be a distinctly straight line of the back and a bust-cliff, indicative of boned stays. The fitted back also suggests stays with a slightly raised waist. Possibly something like this pair:
Half-boned stays, 1770s-80s, French, Musee du Costume et de la Dentelle
Anton Graff, Anna Maria Frederike von Taube, lady in waiting to Dorothea von Medem, 1780s, RundÄle Palace, Latvia
Hana Marmota introduced me to Anna Maria Frederike von Taube. It’s fantastic to be able to include more non-white chemises, more examples worn by not-so-young women, and more examples from outside of France and England. Von Taube’s chemise is silk rather than cotton, and has slimmer sleeves, indicating it’s more likely to be from the second half of the 1780s or later. The heavier silk fabric rounds out von Taube’s torso, but the even gathers of her bodice, stiff line of her wide sash, and her characteristic lean, heavily suggest that she is wearing boned stays with no bust separation.
Jacques-Louis David (1748—1825), Portrait of Emilie Seriziat (nee Pecoul) and her Son, 1795, Louvre Museum
Softer stays & bust-separating stays
Élisabeth-Louise Vigee-Le Brun, self portrait with a cerise ribbon, 1781-82
Le Brun’s portrait shows a very soft, rounded bust, and slight definition between the bust. She might be wearing something like these soft stays.
Stays, England, 1780s, Silk taffeta, lined with silk, ribbon, © Victoria & Albert Museum, T.188-1961
They are very similar to the 1790 J.S. Bernhardt stays Kleidung um 1800 just researched and recreated. Thanks to the slight point at the centre front, they provide bust separation and definition.
Élisabeth Vigee Le Brun, Portrait of Madame de Moreton, La Comtesse Moreton de Chabrillan, Marie-Elisabeth Olive (nee Frottier de la Coste-Messeliere), Comtesse de Moreton de Chabrillon (1761-1807), 1782
This chemise might be worn au natural, but there seems to be some support to the bust, though it is too soft and round for full stays. She might be wearing something very similar to Le Brun (above). Alternatively, she might be wearing stays that provide full bust separation, such as these:
Corset (Stays) 18th century, American or European, cotton, silk, Metropolitan Museum of Art, C.I.41.94
Marie Antoinette en gaule, 1783, by Élisabeth Vigee Le Brun
Le Brun’s famous and mildly infamous (because it showed the Queen in an informal dress) portrait of Marie Antoinette is another very interesting and hard to interpret portrait. It gives the impression of shadowing between the bust, and the sash is worn quite loose and soft. Is the shadowing just the fullness of the front opening, or is she too wearing the same type of softer unboned stays that I posted above? It certainly appears to be something that provides a slight breast separation and definition, as her dress is very full and gathered, and there is no extra fullness at the centre.
Mrs. Billington (Elizabeth Weichsel) as Saint Cecilia, 1787 by George Romney, 23.397
Mrs Billington’s portrait is another instance where the painting could either be read as boned stays with shadows created at the centre front by the opening, or softer stays that separate the bust slightly. The roundness on the outer sides of the bust makes me think it’s the latter. Billington was a noted opera singer. She frequently combated unsavoury rumours about her personal life, so may have been trying to appear as respectable as possible.
Note the slight suggestion of pink in her skirt – either reflecting off the red around her, or indicating a pink underskirt.
Louise Élisabeth Vigee Le Brun (1755—1842), Portrait of Empress Elisabeth Alexeievna of Russia, 1795, Castle of Wolfsgarten
This gown is more 1790s transitional round-gown than true chemise a la reine, but it provides a clear image of her torso, so I’ve included it. As you can see, minor restraint, with slight bust definition, like the Bernhardt stays and V&A’s soft silk stays.
Au Natural or extremely low-cut bust separating undergarments
Angelica Kauffmann, Self-portrait, 1780-1785
Angelica might be wearing a very light pair of jumps, the type that divides the bust. If she is, they are cut extremely low, to allow the entire curve of her breast to show, and her chemise is extremely fine, as her nipples are visible.
Louise Élisabeth Vigee Le Brun (1755—1842), The Wadsworth Atheneum, Hartford, CT 1787 Yolande Gabrielle Martine, Duchess of Polignac, 1782
Polignac’s second, much less formal chemise portrait. I don’t think she is wearing anything. Her bosom is very soft and round, and the plunging neckline would reveal most undergarments, especially anything that separated the bust.
Elisabeth Louise Vigee Le Brun, self-portrait with a straw hat, after 1782
The fabric is so soft across the bust, and the neckline is so plunging, that it doesn’t seem likely that she was wearing anything more than a chemise in the way of undergarments. It’s possible that Polignac and Le Brun are wearing very low-cut stays like these, and their ribbons are artfully arranged to hide them at their cleavage:
Stays, England or France, ca. 1790, Cotton with silk embroidery, boning, and lined with linen, © Victoria & Albert Museum, T.237-1983
Mrs Crouch (Anna Maria Phillips), 1787 by George Romney Kenwood House, the Iveagh Bequest, © Historic England
Mrs Crouch’s bust is quite low, round, and separate, making supportive undergarments unlikely. Crouch was a famous actress, and she appears to be depicted either as the muse of theatre, or as one of the famous characters she played, so her garments may not be an accurate representation of fashionable dress.
Marie-Victoire Lemoine. Atelier of a Painter, Probably Madame Vigee Le Brun (1755—1842), and Her Pupil, The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Le Brun’s dress blurs the line between ‘ancient costume’ and chemise a la reine, so isn’t the most accurate case study. It definitely appears to be worn sans undergarments though.
Conclusion:
The full range of 1780s & 90s undergarments seems to be plausible options for chemise a la reine.
Softer stays seem to be more common in French portraits than English, though this was not a comprehensive enough survey to conclusively state that.
Examples that might be stay-less are often in the context of classically inspired semi-costumes.
The timing of this post is exceptional! I’ve just started making my first chemise a la reine and was trying to figure out if my current stays would create the correct final silhouette and if there would be some skirt fluff to construct. Looking at Marie-Anne Pierrette Paulze, Lady Lemon, and Mrs Billington I think it might be time to pull out that half-finished quilted petticoat from my days as a baby costumer!
I love the 1790s stays – I can really see how the 18th-century influenced the New Look – they look so much like a 1950s half cup longline bra I once deeply coveted on Ebay.
bbc.co.ukThe BBC program A Stitch in Time ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09l2qzs ) just recreated the Marie Antoinette chemise, they put what looked like a fully boned set of stays under it. If you can find it to watch it is very interesting!
I’ve just binge watched the first five of these, as in this evening because it is so interesting, So apt! I just watched the Chemise a la reine episode and wish each episode was a lot longer so we could see more detail. The episode that had me sit up as the green dress from the Arnolfini, which I did study many years ago, but somehow never twigged that she is clutching her dress to her body not padded to look pregnant.
Back to the above, the brown thing looks very much like a lute, with its right angle neck end facing the artist. The way she is holding it is the way one comfortably holds a small stringed instrument I find when not playing it. I wonder if the lack of features in it is just the artist sketching it out?
I was going to say just the same thing about the A Stitch in Time and What they choose to put underneath. You can watch it here at YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fN4RQiYPSqM Hopefully it doesn’t get taken down because it is a really nice series and so interesting and deserves to reach a big audience.
Forgive me if this sounds jejune, but it appears as though every woman who wore a chemise a la reine wore the type of supportive garment she found comfortable, or perhaps best looking on her (depending on the woman).
Absolutely. And the ones that pushed the image she was trying to create, and fit her social standing. So it’s really interesting when we see examples of the same women in different undergarments, to create different impressions, as with Le Brun and Polignac.
That’s a great point, and one I overlooked. We do have evidence of the same woman seeking to convey different impressions at different times, and using different support garments to do it. That would make the basis for an interesting and useful academic article.
Looking at paintings like this is also good evidence for the use of certain types of undergarments that are otherwise fairly roughly dated in museum collections – like bust separating stays. Museums usually say ‘1780s’ or ‘1790s’, but if you can clearly see bust separation in a painting from 1782, that’s evidence those stays could be early 1780s, rather than later – really important in an era where there are so many experimental looks, and they are changing so quickly.
About that Romney portrait of Miss Kitty Calcraft, with the confusing brown space/object…. It looks quite muddled, frankly, though impossible to tell from a photograph if this is because of Romney painting clumsily from the start (perhaps not very likely), or changing his mind and sloppily overpainting some earlier element, or from a later restoration/overpainting. The perspective and anatomy and hand position make very little sense if it’s an open space. It could just (…just…) be a very small lute-bodied instrument, held with the flat front against her body, and the neck projecting forward almost directly towards the viewer. But in that case the perspective of the instrument is extremely skewed, and the details are impossibly smudgy. But that, again, could be a clumsy misunderstanding in a later overpainting – one can’t say without an examination report. I do think it likely that there was intended to be an object there, though.
Yeah, it’s really strange isn’t it? I’ve looked and looked at it, and played with the colours and contrast to see if I could make it out, and it just isn’t clear what’s happening.
This is both interesting and very helpful – I do have trouble spotting such subtle differences in paintings, and being walked through a series of examples really helps!
Thank you for this post! So much has changed in my own self since this post was first put up, and this repost had me spending so much time reflecting. It was an unexpected gift. Thank you.
(And man oh man, I just love all of these dresses, every single one, in all of their variations, but especially the toile over silk)
So the question that remains for me is… What kind of underpinnings did they wear under the skirts? Bumroll? Lots and lots of petticoats?
Does somebody know?
I teach the Lavoisier portrait at the Met and never noticed her pocket…thank you so much for giving me fresh eyes!
The last portrait you mention it being blurred between a chemise le reine and an ancient type of dress. I was just reading on the Regency period fashion and how it was such a quick “blip” in fashion history only lasting about 20 years from late 1790s to about 1815 or so. That article mentioned those Regency fashions started to resemble Greek dress styles and hair styles modeled from Ancient Greek Deities and such. So you are right and I bet the Atelier of a Painter was painted right as the Greek influence started. Look at the painting in the painting and looks very Ancient Greece.
And I see her holding some kind of wooden instrument too in the crook of her arm. Great article!!