by Danielle Funiciello
In March, we dove into some myths about women’s fashion with
an
article about what was and wasn’t considered scandalous dress in the 18th-century.
Today we will be continuing that thread with some myths about the ‘corset’ or,
more accurately, ‘stays’. I will not be covering the terminology shifts in this
article, but within the 18
th-century, ‘corsets’ were actually a soft
garment quite the opposite of the rigid stays that we have come to think of as
corsets (if you want more on the distinctions and history of the terminology
this
fascinating blog by The Dreamstress should do the trick). For the rest of
the article, we will be using the 18
th-century terms; ‘stays’, ‘pair
of stays’, or ‘pair of bodies’. Whatever the terminology, I have never done a
program in historic clothing where someone has not wanted to know about my
underthings. The questions and assumptions about these garments are almost always
the same, so without further ado;
The Myths: Stays
are uncomfortable torture devices that make it impractical to do work or
breathe properly and caused women to faint frequently. Women needed to be laced
into their stays by a servant or their husband. Historically, men used stays
to subjugate women, as a way to keep women as the fragile, weaker sex by limiting
their movement and preventing them from doing work.
For Disney fans, the arguments may sound familiar. Emma
Watson had strong feelings about wearing ‘corsets’ as Belle in the March-released live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast. Her concerns were based in
feminism and the idea that stays restricted women and made them incapable of
action (if you are not a Disney fan, just
Google ‘Emma Watson corset’ to see the
dozens of articles surrounding her decision not to wear structure garments). The
film is slated as a fantasy setting, so delving too deep into the “accuracy” of
various costume pieces would be unproductive, but it is worth pointing out that
the majority of costuming fits into the late 18
th-century and, as we
shall discuss today, stays had different fits, purpose, and societal meaning
within the 18
th-century than they do today.
 |
The author in full 18th-
century kit, with stays
underneath. |
Let us first address something from personal experiences (my
own and those of other female reenactors I have spoken to); worn properly,
stays are not uncomfortable. Or, more accurately, stays are not much less
comfortable than modern support garments. Like modern support garments, the
intent was two-fold – as the name suggests, they offer support, and they create
the ideal female shape as prescribed by the culture of their time. That shape
was much different from what we consider attractive today – a stiff, conically
shaped torso which gave contrast to the soft swell of the bosom and tapered
down to jut out at the hips with the help of wide skirts, padding, or paniers.
Also like modern support garments, there are trade-offs to
the structure offered. Stays support the lower back and create good posture.
However, they can cause chafing depending on the fit and the quality of the shift - the linen underdress worn beneath
the stays. For us modern folk who are not used to wearing stays, the posture
created also uses muscles we are not accustomed to using, which can ache on new
or infrequent wearers.
Talk to many female reenactors and they will tell you;
sitting for long periods of time is more problematic than standing, dancing, or
performing labor. With these latter actions, properly worn stays can act as a
back brace and make labor or movement more comfortable over the course of a
day. Few describe breathing problems or fainting spells, even amongst
reenactors who wear stays on a daily basis.
As for getting into stays? Believe it or not, getting out of
stays by yourself is typically more difficult than getting into them (think
getting stuck with an XXS t-shirt halfway over your head!). No servants or
husbands required here - at least, with 18
th-century stays. There
are two key factors that make this a one-woman job in the 18
th-century.
The first is that stays did not exclusively lace up the back. In the mid-1700s
in particular, many stays laced front and back to accommodate a fashion called
a stomacher. This would allow a woman to easily lace herself up from the front.
The second factor is the way the lacing was done – cross-lacing, as is commonly
seen on modern corsets, was not the preferred style of the time and as
this lacing how-to on the Hand Bound blog says: “
seems
to be reserved for lace-up bodices only, as you often see it in images of
working class girls”. In other words, cross-lacing was only used, if at
all, when it was at the front of a garment where a woman could see what she was
doing. For most stays, straight-lacing, also called spiral-lacing, was used.
 |
| Corset lacing, or cross-lacing, shown left, is what you may be familiar with from corsets after the mid 19th-century. Spiral or straight-lacing, much more common in the 18th-century is shown on the right.* |
Compared
to cross-lacing, straight-lacing does not create a lot of friction when pulled,
and so can pulled from the tail of the lacing, rather than from the
hard-to-reach center of the back as one would have to in order to properly
cross-lace. Straight-lacing also has the benefit of lying flatter under
garments and allowing for more flexibility. In the later 19th-century,
cross-lacing was adopted because the friction created prevented the lacing from
loosening during tight-lacing (see below) – a particular problem with
upperclass garments which used silk lacing.
 |
Children's stays in the collections of
The Metropolitan Museum |
Within the 18th-century, many physicians praised
stays for their support and the posture they created. There were arguments for
the ‘beauty of the human form’ that this created as well, but people within the
18th-century seemed to consider stays, worn properly, to be first a
boon to health, and second a fashion item. While the whalebone used in
upper-class stays could be cost prohibitive for some, materials like thick
reeds could be substituted, which allowed women from all walks of life to wear
them for support. They were considered so healthful, that even children – male and female – in wealthier households
grew up wearing stays. We’ll come back to this later.
You may have noticed a key mantra in the preceding text;
“worn properly”. NOT tight-laced.
Tight-lacing, waist-cinching, or waist-training, as it has
become known in modern times, has been practiced as long as these stiff, laced
undergarments have existed (since at least the late 1500s). It became
particularly popular during the Regency Era (1795-1820), again in the late
Victorian Era (1837-1901), and has had a rebirth with celebrities like Kim
Kardashian who advertise their use of spanxs and waist-cinchers (often no
longer laced) as a way for women to look thinner by wearing their undergarments
too tightly.
Rather than allowing a woman the bracing effects intended by
stays, tight-laced stays can create all of the issues in our myth – they cut
off circulation, make it difficult to move and breath, and create the
unrealistic Barbie-doll-like figures oft’ criticized in the modern era.
 |
| "A cutting wind" shows the perils associated with tight-lacing c. 1820 |
Within the Schuyler’s lifetime, tight-lacing was practiced
by both men and women to create a fashionable figure, but it was also heavily
criticized by physicians, satirists and other contemporaries. It was denounced
as vain, unhealthy, and dishonest, much as some consider similar practices
today. It should therefore be thought of as an extreme fashion, rather than typical
use of the garment within the 18th-century. The wealthier one was
within that century, the more likely one was to practice tight-lacing. After
all, the negative symptoms, particularly the difficulty of movement, were not
as much of a strain if one did not have to perform any labor. As one might today
wear Spanx™, or even stiletto heels to a party - but not on a walking tour or
around one’s house - tight-lacing and other uncomfortable fashions were often
reserved for formal and public occasions.
As far as feminist concerns about stays go – while stays
were a standard part of women’s dress during the 18
th-century, as alluded to earlier in this article, many male children in wealthy families wore
stays as well.
George Washington, for example, wore stays until he was around 5 years old. These stays were designed to alter the male form into the preferred
shape, à la binding practiced by other cultures. In this case, the ideal male
form included low sloped shoulders, which gave the illusion of a longer neck, and
which was created by lightly binding the ribcage. This in turn pulled the ribs,
and thereby the shoulder sockets, down and inward. One can extrapolate that if
stays were, to any degree, forced on women because they were known to be
unhealthful and cause weakness at
the time, the Washingtons, and other wealthy
families, would not have applied such practices to their sons.
 |
"Lacing a Dandy" shows the numerous padding
and garments that could go into sculpting the
fashionable male form, 1819. |
As the 1790s progressed into the 1800s, young men of the
fashionable set began wearing a male version of stays more regularly. We might
now refer to such a garment as a girdle, but the express purpose for these
garments was to create the slender wasp-waist that was popular with both men
and women. As waists got artificially thinner, criticism of tight-lacing became
more prevalent. Health concerns caused by the fashion trend were broadcast by
more and more physicians in the 19th-century. In order to discourage
men from practicing the trend in the late Regency Period, tight-lacing was
often shown as feminine and emasculating. While criticism was also pointed at
women, the narrative of it being feminine led to more of a
“girls-will-be-girls” attitude when it came to tight-lacing, which in turn led
to the stereotypes we forged about stays/corsets throughout the Victorian Era.
 |
| "A Dandy fainting or_ An Exquisite in Fits" simultaneously criticizes the negative health consequences of tight-laced garments, and begins to feminize "dandy" fashion trends, including tight-lacing. |
Want to learn more about women in the 18th-century,
the Schuyler Sisters, and even handle a pair of stays yourself? Check out our
Women of Schuyler Mansion Focus Tours. Reservations are required by calling the site. See Facebook for more
information.
*Image sources:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4Y_V5L_wAw
https://passionalcorsets.wordpress.com/lacing-corsets/
