Where are her undies?

[lastbloom]

So, this puzzles me. I see a fair number of paintings in which a lady's undergarments are completely invisible. No sign of a chemise, petticoat, or stays. Surely there is something under there, but what? Where?

www.gogmsite.net/_Media/1798_comtesse_regnault_de-2.jpeg

Is this just an example of artistic license? To be fair, in this painting, the Comtesse Regnault de Saint-Jean d'Angely appears to have some kind of lining under that sheer gown for decency, but I don't see straps to hold it up. Also, looking very closely at the way the bosom of the dress fabric is pressed in slightly, she seems to be wearing a busk.

[dawnluckham]

LOL! This painting shows up again and again as *proof* that women didn’t wear corsets during this era.

I’ve been to Louvre but I can’t recall if you can see undergarments in the painting. SO MANY of these famous paintings reveal details that do not appear in the reproductions we view on the Internet or in book prints. We must keep that in mind when we analyze paintings and period prints for clothing details.

It could well be that she’s wearing FLESH or “blush” coloured undergarments. If I blow the paintings up large on my monitor, I imagine there MIGHT be a shadow that could indicate this. It could be artistic licence. It could be that the Comtesse is so perfectly formed that she does not need undergarments.

She certainly does appear “naturally” high busted.

But... knowing how garments of the period are made ....
Knowing what was “normally” worn....
Knowing “normal” constructions techniques through study...

“Normally” that sheer dress is on its own. It’s created without a lining as we would imagine. It’s simply a sheer dress.

That leaves us to figure out how the undergown is constructed. It’s unlikely that it’s a strapless tube of fabric.

I’ll leave it to us all to interpret it from there.