by Danielle Funiciello
DISCLAIMER: This articlefeatures discussion about nudity and exposure in drawings and paintings. No nudityis shown within the article (except through a link which is marked), but language regarding the female form is used,and may not be comfortable for young or sensitive readers.
Untilthe social movements of the 1960s hit the museum world in the 1970s, there werea lot of problems with interpretation of female historical figures. One mightargue that there are still a lot of problems with interpretation of femalehistoric figures, though things are generally moving in the right direction.The age old excuse has been that there are not enough sources about women, andthat this problem is upon us since women were not considered historicallyrelevant in their own time, and so sources were not saved. Documentation aboutwomen is sometimes hard to come by,especially when it comes to ladies of lower classes, and the enslaved. Thereare two things, however, in women’s history of which there is no shortage: images and myths. There are so many mythsabout women in the 18th Century, that today we will only be focusingon a few that relate to misconceptions about historical modesty, but we will beusing lots of images to address these myths!
The Myth: 18thCentury people were more sexually repressed and modestly dressed that modernpeople. It was scandalous for women to show their ankles or elbows in publicbecause those were sexualized body parts – that is why women wore long skirtsand ¾ or full sleeve gowns. Low-cut dresses were also risqué.
Given our modern concept of body and sexuality, we have veryset notions about what is and is not appropriate and, because most of us aretaught that our history begins with religious settlers like the Pilgrims, wetend to imagine that all Colonists were more prudish than we are. In actuality,outside of actual Puritans (and other conservative religious groups), theColonial era was not very puritanical. As an example, up to one third ofColonial women went to the alter pregnant, depending on the colony.
Furthermore, sexualization of individual body parts is asdifferent from century to century as it is from culture to culture. Much ofwhat we now think of as the strict repression of “the past” (the first signthat a historical myth is misplaced is when the time period in question is vague)became set during the Victorian era (1837-1901).
The ankles myth, for instance, is one that comes out of 19th-Centurylore and was applied back to the 18th-Century. Whether the anklesmyth is true within the Victorian period is outside of the scope of thisarticle, but it was not true of women in the 18th-Century. It wouldhave been inappropriate for anyone of the genteel class, man or woman, to show any part of their leg without astocking. However, lifting one’s skirts to expose the stocking-footed ankle wasquite common. After all, it would have been dangerous to ascend stairs or entera carriage without arranging one’s skirts to do so. Many women’s fashions ofthe late 18th-Century incorporated slightly shorter skirts in astyle that was meant to imitate the pastoral, working-class shepherdess - andwhich allowed the ankle to be seen.
| Two 18th-Century French fashion plates and a dress from the Kyoto Costume Institute (center) showing the popular shepherdess style gown which was meant to mimic (albeit unrealistically) working-class women's styles through shorter hemlines and bustled up skirts. Fashion plates were published and widely distributed to show popular styles to people living outside of high-fashion cities. Far from being a p*rnographic display of the leg, the image on the left was meant to show the styles of shoe, stocking, and garter appropriate to wear with such a dress. |
| A "Robe a la Turque" on a self-portrait of Rose-Adelaide Ducreux, which clearly shows her elbow exposed as she bends to play the harp. |
Similarly, the myth that women’s elbows had to be covered toavoid offending delicate sensibilities stems from observation of fashion tastesrather than any 18th-Century letters, drawings, or documents thatdiscuss the attractiveness of the elbow or the scandal of the elbow beingexposed. Three quarter sleeve dresses werequite popular in the mid to late 18th-Century, and while many suchsleeves would have covered the elbow, many did so just barely, such that anybending of the arm would have exposed the elbow. It is true that there were notmany short sleeved styles and that even if one wore a short sleeved dress, it wastypically worn over a shift with full or ¾ sleeves.
| Another "Robe a la Turque". This style, while not defined by its' short sleeves, allowed the wearer to layer fabrics in a way that displayed wealth, especially when rich fabrics like silk and lace were used. |
There are two likely explanations for these styles. Thefirst is that the linen shift undergarment was worn as an absorbent layer toremove oils and dirt from skin and protect the expensive outer garments from damageinflicted by the human body. It would not have been functional in this job ifthe shift sleeve was shorter than the gown sleeve allowing the skin to touchthe outer garment. The second explanation for the style is that longer sleevesmeant more fabric and more fabric meant more money. Short sleeves could be seenas skimping on fabric costs, but longer sleeves showed off one’s wealth.Layering sleeve lengthsso that one could see the edge of the shift showed off even more fabric and thereby more wealth. Full length sleeves made of fine materials showed off one’s wealtheven more,but restricted arm movement making it difficult to do any labor or,for that matter, leisure activities. The style became popular because manywomen chose the comfort of arm mobility but, among the wealthy, could use lacecuffs, ruffles, ribbons, and other costly adornments to suggest that theshortened sleeve was not an issue of money.
| Catharine Van Rensselaer Schuyler by Thomas McIllworth |
Today’s article was prompted by a very frequent visitor reactionto portraits of Catharine Van Rensselaer Schuyler and her daughter CorneliaSchuyler Malcolm. It usually sounds something like this: “I can’t believe she’swearing such a low cut dress! In that time period?!”
This is where our perceptions of what is, and what is not asexualized body part come into play. More importantly, how body parts were considered sexual or vulgar has changedsignificantly. The upper chest, neck, and shoulders - the area referred to as décolletage,was considered a beautiful, but not overtly sexual area of the female body.Where we now consider too much exposed cleavage to be inappropriate, men andwomen of the 18th-Century did not seem to think much of the swell ofthe chest. France in the 1790s took this to the extreme with fashions thatallowed the breast to swell over the top of the gown. These gowns were shown innumerous fashion plates which were not intended as parody or p*rnography. [DISCLAIMER: Some of these fashionsplates, which do contain illustrationsof nudity, can be seen on this blog. The link is provided only as a location tosee these images in a centralized place. Schuyler Mansion is not affiliatedwith this blog and the interpretations made by EKDuncan’s blog are notrepresentative of the arguments made in this article.]
| Cornelia Schuyler Morton by Thomas Sully - on display at Schuyler Mansion. |
The French captions under each drawing describe only thestyle and features of the dresses. They make no mention of the exposure causedby these gowns, implying that the low-cut nature was not necessarily expectedto shock or offend the viewer. This was another way of displaying one’s wealth.After all, a dress which can so easily slip off the wearer is not designed forrigorous activity. It could only be worn by someone who had no need to performlabor. This would also explain why this extreme fashion never takes foot in theAmericas – even wealthy women like Catharine Schuyler, who owned slaves to do thebulk of the labor, still had more hands-on responsibilities than women in thehigh-courts of France.
| "The Inconvenience of Dress", published by S.W. Fores, which mocks the preferred female shape created by fashion trends. |
Strangely, more lewdness was implied in parody images ofwomen wearing too much clothing than none at all. Things like paniers, bumrolls, and layered petticoats which, to the modern eye, cover and obscure thehuman figure, were considered suggestive to the point of vulgarity by some inthe 18th-Century. Back in the arena of décolletage; fichu - squareor triangular scarves which were tucked around the neck and into the front ofthe gown) - are often considered modesty pieces by modern people. However, ifworn in excessive layers – as became popular in the 1780s and 90s - they toowere seen as being suggestive and showy; the 18th-Century equivalentof bra-stuffing, perhaps? The fichu was more about comfort of movement anddisplay of fabric as, you guessed it, a symbol of one’s wealth.
| Catharine Van Cortlandt Van Rensselaer. Compare to Catharine Schuyler's portrait, above. |
An additional point of interest regarding Catharine’s portrait,is that it is very likely that the body shown is not Catharine’s Schuyler’s atall. The dress was certainly not hers, as it appears on a number of other womenat the time, painted by a number of different artists. This includes Catharine’syounger cousin, Catharine Van Cortlandt Van Rensselaer who is shown soidentically to Catharine Schuyler, that the artist, did not even change thefolds in her sleeve. In all likelihood, sketches for the body of the portraitwere made from a model wearing a false gown which the artist kept in his studio– this would allow him to paint accurately draped fabric from life. Thefeatures of the dress were then painted in in mimic of another portrait,probably one of someone that Catharine wanted to emulate. This process meantthat Catharine only had to pose briefly, so that the artist could make a sketchof her face from life, but the rest of the painting could be done from the
artist’s studio, saving time and money.
The fact that the body shown was not Catharine’s was not asecret. People looking at the portrait within the time period would haveunderstood the painting process. Thereby, even if Catharine would not have beencomfortable showing this much skin during her daily life, she hardly had reasonto be embarrassed by someone else’s body with her head slapped on top.
We have a lot more images and myths regarding women in the18th-Century, so check back to the blog often if you liked thisarticle. Additionally, since 2017 is not only the 100th Anniversaryof Schuyler Mansion’s opening, but also of women’s suffrage, we are pleased toannounce that a program on the “Women of Schuyler Mansion” will be availableboth as an outreach program, and as a focus tour of the museum during the 2017season. Further details will be available on Facebook by May 17th,the first day of our open season.
