So a Robe a la Turque is What, Exactly…?

A lot of the confusion comes from hindsight — modern eyes want to force the past to label everything with one, precise name for each & every item with scientific precision. But when have people ever done that about clothing? Humans only started doing that about animals & plants in the late 18th century, & the genus / species / etc. divisions can be both subtle & arbitrary in places.

Consider all of the 21st-century clothing catalogs & how they describe a very similar pair of jeans. Say "skinny jeans" — J.Crew calls them "the Toothpick," Old Navy calls them "The Rockstar," & Gap calls them "Always Skinny." 200 years from now, a reenactor looking at just these catalogs & trying to figure out what people wore would be having the same concerns about skinny jeans as you do about robe a la turque. Are these different? Are they the same? Are they related? What about jeggings? Where does "rise" or "wash" fit in?

Point is, the terminology isn't as important as the context. Who wore it, when, & where, & also with what. Create a whole outfit that makes sense. Just like today, you wouldn't wear skinny jeans with a tutu, a swimsuit top, & fuzzy slippers to the opera unless you want to be considered nutso, assemble a period outfit that's consistent to one time & place. That's the key more than naming it "correctly" 🙂

I've thought long and hard about the topic of gown-naming over the years. What it seems to come down to is that there's an original version with a strict definition (in this case, overgown with no waist seam, worn over an underbodice; short sleeves with long), which over time is loosened, so any gown with certain aspects of the named one can be called by that name. It's sort of the opposite of the modern skinny jeans situation Trystan describes – as though "the Rockstar" style of jeans became popular, and then different stores started stocking what they called "rockstars" even though their jeans were only skinny through the thigh, or the calf. I agree that it's best not to worry too much about terminology – the fashion press at the time kind of seems to have preferred having a descriptive phrase to attach to a gown (hence all the one-offs like the robe à la musulmane and à la chinoise, etc.), and all that was required was that it fit some of the basic requirements. When a term frequently matches up to a trait – like the cut-in-one back of the polonaise, or the turque's zone front – then it was likely used that way regularly by people, but apart from that there's no way of knowing what was the Galerie/Cabinet being them.

I think the reason the lévite is "like a circassienne" in the one plate is the short oversleeves, which weren't common to them.

Take this with a big hunk of salt, as I'm just a costumer, not a historian–but it looks to me like that artist raided his closet–a fur lined gown here, a fancy embroidered sik drape there, all held together with a magnificent belt, with the total effect one of suggesting a beautiful shapely woman walking around in a sultans palace. Maybe if you raid your own considerably exciting closet you may come up with some likely pieces to recreate the mood of this painting? Keep me posted, I love this stuff!!
Nancy N

Well humph. I wanted to be all "18th century Dress History PhD candidate" smarty-pants-y here, but everyone has already said such great and insightful things! All I'll add is that from the perspective of someone who's "job" includes trying to get inside the heads of people who have been dead 200-300 years and understand their clothing-related motives and actions I think there is a real limit to how far down we can plumb really specific details. People are people, they're notoriously inconsistent. And along with spelling, inconsistent terminology ran rampant in the 18th century.

I in no way mean to discourage your digging, it's fascinating to research and see what other people come up with! I just don't think you need to drive yourself crazy over it!