#(generally. I'm sure some particularly fashion-obsessed socialites were Down but they were the exception even in their own class)

[marzipanandminutiae]

Hot Take

museums should label 19th-century women’s clothing primarily by formality (except in the case of garments with specific purposes, eg. “cycling costume” or “nightgown”), not by the 10,000 different terms they might be called at the time

my reasoning is that the current hodgepodge of terms, while technically accurate to the period:

1. reinforces the myth that middle- or upper-class women used to always change their dresses many times a day No Matter What, rather than what seems to me the primary-source-supported reality- that they changed situationally, as necessary

2. promotes unnecessary disconnect between the past and the present. we have varying degrees of clothing formality today, just without specific terms for each one. they had garments that could serve for multiple purposes and be dressed up or down with accessories back then. but because we don’t talk about an “afternoon dress” vs. a “ball gown” and they didn’t talk about the dress code for a party being “nice casual” vs. “dressy.” there’s this false idea that our systems of clothing changes/formality are Totally Different. which is really not the case, I think

3. even they couldn’t agree on what to call each individual outfit! I’ve seen fashion plates in magazines where the textual description and the label on the image give the same dress different names

this post brought to you by: Marzi Has Seen Too Many Gowns Labeled “Evening Gown” On Museum Websites Apparently For Their Formality When In Truth They Do Not Have The Single Factor That Usually Made A Dress Strictly For Evening At The Time (namely, revealing more skin about the chest and arms) And Therefore Would Have Stood Just As Well For Formal Daytime Events