The well dressed Wench

[Gentleman of Fortune]

I pulled this post out of What pyrates really wore as it was literally getting burried in Clevage!

Here goes

I hope Patrick Hand doesn't see this Christine.... he won't be able to sleep at night!

But as to your question about bodices...

From an interesting site with history of corsets we get this

After 1630-40 the corset became part of the top fabric bodice as it was mounted on a boned lining. This was actually thought of as tailoring as the stays became one with the bodice gown. This fashion virtually dispensed with stays as an item. Stays only returned in the 1670s when the patterned bodice was worn under the over gown. Then the boned section was once more thought of as stays and considered an undergarment.

So bodice means "pair of bodies" which, by our period (1690-1725) would be known as "Stays".

Here is an example of a proper bodice/stays of the period

There are more examples and general information at http://www.marariley.net

So the bodice/stays of the Golden Age period should be a support garmet (with whalebone) that is kind of a part of the outer clothing.

There are some great resources online for this stuff.

I would first start with The Stay Maker's site She really does give a good overall idea of what we are dealing with. Another priceless part of her site is the Dressing the 18th century lady

Sally Queen goes into greater detail on stays in an article on mid 18th Century Stays.

It appears that their have been several pairs of Original 18th Century Stays That have sold on e-bay. This link examines a pair in greater detail.

And when you get an itching to make a pair for yourself, you can use this Custom Corset Pattern Generator from http://costume.dm.net/

Lastly, another great resource for costuming and 17th/18th century info is

The Salacious Historian's Lair this is WELL worth the visit and if you scroll down there is great info on 1680-1690 womens wear.

PS

I would think that Patrick Hand could make you a corset... Although I would imagine that he would require several fittings.... laugh.gif

[Rumba Rue]

Corsets are fine for the upper ladies and household servants, but for the general gal who is under the 'peasant' flag, a good bodice does just fine.

*Note: I have a gorgeous Renaissance Noble Ladies Court dress. I never needed to wear a corset with it. I made a decent V shaped stomacher that is inserted into a 'pocket' inside the bodice that works just fine.

In hot weather, the need for more layers of clothing isn't what a gal needs.

BTW- The Court dress is for sale-(size 16/18), contact me offline.

[Fox]

HEADS UP! Foxe's Oar coming in!

One of my real pet peeves is the cluster of statements that surround the wearing of corsets/stays. Strictly speaking RumbaRue is right, it's not essential for a working class woman to be wearing stays, but really the vast majority of them did. In the 18th century people tended to conform to norms much more than we do today, and stays quite definitely made up one of the norms of female underwear, from beggars to queens. FWIW, I object equally strongly to the statement that ALL women must wear stays. I was therefore delighted to find the following article on the MaraRiley page GoF quoted.

"Poor people didn't wear stays", "all women always wore stays," and  "Stays were never worn uncovered."

As with most sweeping statements, neither of the above statements is true.  Poor women DID frequently wear stays; not wearing them was generally considered a sign of loose morals, and was considered so important that poorhouses in England provided them to the women in their care.  Stays were often available on the used clothing market, or could be made at home, so they weren't necesarily out of the financial reach of poor women; and many period depictions show lower-class women wearing stays (milkmaids, fishwives, etc.).

On the other hand, there are also period depictions and descriptions of women who aren't wearing stays.  Who were they?  Well, to name a few examples, there's the whore's servant in "A Harlot's Progress", who wears a bedgown without stays underneath; the "Jersey Nanny" (presumably a nursemaid, but nothing more is known about her", who wears what appears to be a bedgown pinned shut; the Scots-Irish young women described in Dodderidge's journal of his travels on the frontier, who wore nothing but a shift pinned close to reveal their figures.  These women would have been considered 'slatterns', slovenly or unfashionable people outside the mainstream of society.

Also, women who were in the privacy of their own home (due to post-pregnancy confinement or illness) could wear a lightly boned or unboned garment called 'jumps', or a quilted waistcoat, which provided moderate support and modesty.  They would not have worn these items in public, say, to the market or church.

So, choose an option that is appropriate to your impression.  If you are portraying a slattern (and I have a few friends who do, and have a good deal of fun with that impression), then that's fine.  But if you want to portray a 'proper' woman, you really do need to wear stays. 

I think many women resist wearing stays because they think that stays will be uncomfortable -- they associate them with the scene in "Gone With the Wind" where Scarlett is being laced into her corset.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  A good-fitting corset should be snug enough not to move around much on the body, but you should be able to breathe while wearing it (you may need to loosen your stays a little if you plan on dancing vigorously, of course).  And stays for women who expected to work in them were cut differently from those worn by upper-class women; the armscyes were bigger, and allowed for more arm movement.

Half-boned stays are fine, by the way.  There seems to be an attitude in some reenacting circles that fully-boned stays are 'better' than half-boned stays, but both styles were period, as well as stays that were fully-boned in front (for better support) and half-boned in back.

As to where it's appropriate to wear your stays uncovered - there are period depictions and descriptions of women wearing stays in their own homes.  For instance, women are shown doing laundry, picking apples, or serving tea to the master of the house while wearing their stays.  In some of the street scenes by Pyne and others, a woman is shown in the street bringing a chair to a peddler who is going to re-cane the seats.  So, if you are working, your stays may be uncovered. (They don't have to be, of course; there are also pictures of women working while wearing their gowns or jackets.)

However, if you are 'in public' in the sense of going to market, going to visit neighbors, or going to church or a public meeting, you really should be wearing a gown or jacket or some other covering over your stays.

A generation ago, it was considered rude for men to appear in public without a jacket over their shirts.  If you saw a man in his shirtsleeves, it was in a working context.  Now, anything goes.  So we've lost a lot of the social context needed to understand the mindset of what clothing was worn in what circumstances.

[Hawkyns]

Foxe, you have no idea how much nastiness this subject has caused in the French and Indian War community. There seems to be a presumption, on the part of many, that everyone should be from a respectable, eastern US background, and that stays are a requirement. When women, including my wife, have shown up to events as one of the disreputable lower sort, there has been behind the back snarking up to outright confrontation. When Dodderidge is brought up, he is dismissed out of hand. When Hogarth is cited, they claim that was merely an artist's fantasy.

Part of the situation, on this side of the pond, comes from a wish to see the founding fathers and their ladies as paragons of virtue, virtual demigods who tamed a heathen continent for the supreme race. The fact that New York, Boston. Charleston, and Philadelphia had their low sections around the docks can not be assimilated.

There are musters that we have been to, where I have played the part of a smuggler, and she has played the part of a cheap tavern doxie. This is complete with sleazy cut stays, off the shoulder shift, and frayed finery, right out of Hogarth. It is guaranteed to get the 'respectable' people and officers into a real knicker-twisting frenzy. Also, for some of the back-country events, we have done the Border Scots settlers of Dodderidge's descriptions. this has also not benn well received.

I guess I feel that there are a lot of people doing the more respectable or slightly lower strata of society. Not enough people want to show history for what it was, with the drunks, thieves, whores, slaves, and all other low/criminal elements that are part of society.

Hawkyns

[Fox]

Now in a way Hawkyns you've admirably illustrated both sides of the argument (and I acknowledge that the argument goes far beyond stays). There is a world of difference between the standards of dress for upper- and even "respectable" working-class people and those in the gutter, but on the other hand it is that difference which illustrates who we portray.

For any re-enactor (or indeed anyone) to tell your wife that she is incorrectly dressed for not wearing stays as a bottom-of-the-heap doxie is nearly as ludicrous as someone disregarding Hogarth as a good source. BUT on the other hand, for someone to say "I'm a working class tradeswoman, so I don't need to wear stays" is just as daft.

A poor re-enactor might say either "all women should wear stays", or alternatively "women don't have to wears stays if they don't want to unless they're playing gentry". A good re-enactor will say "what kind of women wore stays and what kind didn't?".

The stays/corset argument rages this side of the pond too, though perhaps not as fiercely, and sitting here writing this I wonder why it should be so. I mean, it's just like those other things in re-enactment that some people should do/wear and some people shouldn't, depending on their roles: heeled shoes, long boots, buff-coats, feathered hats, men's jackets, underskirts, sashes, cotton v. linen, expensive dye colours, and... hang on a minute...how many times have I debated those issues too?

Why do re-enactors have such difficulty looking at period sources and making reasonable deductions therefrom? Why do people with their own pre-conceived ideas refuse to accept new interpretations or new evidence except in the light of their own "knowledge"? And why do I get the feeling that sometime soon JT is going to turn up and tell us it was all ok 20 years ago so why change?

Oh and FWIW, over here we take a different view of the founding fathers of America, but let's not get into that - you outnumber me

In 1620 the Pilgrim Fathers landed on Plymouth Rock. Oh, that Plymouth Rock had landed on them.

[Hawkyns]

Oh and FWIW, over here we take a different view of the founding fathers of America, but let's not get into that - you outnumber me

Don't include me in that, mate. I'm Yorkshire, born and bred. I'm living in exile, over here in the colonies

Hawkyns

[Gentleman of Fortune]

This is great! I love controversy... It usually leads to an education! (mine)

Interesting that most women at "pirate" events are portraying some sort of wench/harlot so maybe they should take note.

I think that most re-enactors follow the path of least resistance to getting their kit together, and proper stays/bodice are one hurtle that most women don't want to attempt.

I just wish that we had half of the info on sailor's coats as we do for stays.

GoF

[Patrick Hand]

I'm going to get in so much trouble for this......

Interesting that most women at "pirate" events are portraying some sort of wench/harlot

Off the top of my head, I can think of a few "respectable" ladys that would have had contact with pyrates......... but the majority of women that had anything to do with Pyrates were..... aaaaaah...... well..... wenches and harlots......

[Charity]

Well..i agree but i'm sure one can be veeeeeryyy respectible in one's own right while being a wench or a harlot

[kass]

I think the most important thing to remember is that the bodice worn by so many Ren Faire-goers was invented in the 1970s and has no basis in history. If you don't want to wear stays, at least don't substitute a modern garment.

[Zingara Carmella]

Ah finally the answer I was hoping to hear, since I'm new in the "proper way of things" that was going to be my question.

So the "wench corset" seen in the renfaires usually is not the the proper one right? stopping at the underbust? so I take the whole dress is wrong, with the transparent shirt and 2 skirts, at least for the GAP?

[jendobyns]

Ah finally the answer I was hoping to hear, since I'm new in the "proper way of things" that was going to be my question.

So the "wench corset" seen in the renfaires usually is not the the proper one right? stopping at the underbust? so I take the whole dress is wrong, with the transparent shirt and 2 skirts, at least for the GAP?

Well, this was an old thread, but I think the answer to your question would be a resounding "Yes!" that renfaire getup is not historically accurate. And even the bodices that look like vests with tabs have been documented to the early part of the 20th Century (in Williamsburg, for early docents). Those are not to be confused with jumps, which are similar, frequently quilted and pretty much designed for a layer of warmth.

If you can get your hands on a copy of Corsets and Crinolines, by Norah Waugh, that would be a good start to see how things should look by era. Also Patterns of Fashion by Janet Arnold, and Cut of Women's Clothes (also by Waugh). Years ago I attended a symposium with Sally Queen and Lynne Sorge who was doing tons of research on stays. The symposium was called "From Cone to Comfort", looking at the changing shape of a woman's fashionable silhouette from the end of the 17thC to the end of the 18thC. I can tell you now, there wasn't a single under-bust corset among them!

The corset generator mentioned on a previous post is useful, but keep in mind it's designed for Elizabethan costuming, and doesn't come with tabs in the design (or didn't used to, that might have changed). If you decide to use it to get a basic pattern for your measurements, be sure to look at the period you're going to use for outer clothes and make sure it's the appropriate length and shape. And be sure to add tabs, they'll help keep it from digging into your waist (which can get painful after a day). And I was just informed today (from an attendee at one of the Williamsburg clothing workshops) that while stays themselves should be built to be comfortable for your body, the top where it rises from your arm pit in front should be uncomfortable if you slouch and roll your shoulders forward, as a way of reinforcing the proper period posture.

Hope this helps a bit, too!

Mistress Dobyns

[Zingara Carmella]

Thank you Mistress Dobyns, that was extremely helpull, as a beginner I have been confuse about the whole "stay/corset" thing haven't seen the underbust until I started going to renfaires , it never looked looked like someone before the 20th century would be wearing in public (even a woman of curious reputation) . I will try to get some of those books or patters you mention about the time frame , well probably it will be the GAP anyway the only thing that might hold me back is will be no bellydancing on that garb LOL don't know if I will be able to behave myself

[Jas. Hook]

I will try to get some of those books or patters you mention about the time frame , well probably it will be the GAP anyway the only thing that might hold me back is will be no bellydancing on that garb LOL don't know if I will be able to behave myself

Zing -

Have you considered a Mediterranean persona in the GAoP... say a captured wife of a middle eastern merchant who's vessel was taken, now making her way in the western world. Clothing could be a mix of cultures.

Jas. Hook

"Well behaved women seldom make history"

[Zingara Carmella]

No I have not and is a great idea thank you so much , my persona was some what kinda in that direction, gyspy excaping persecution meets pirate etc etc etc... but I think I can work with that better plus when my husband quits being JS he can be Sinbad LOL no serious he can be a grow up persian, turkish or greek pirate ...

Edited August 9, 2010 by Zingara Carmella

[jendobyns]

No I have not and is a great idea thank you so much , my persona was some what kinda in that direction, gyspy excaping persecution meets pirate etc etc etc... but I think I can work with that better plus when my husband quits being JS he can be Sinbad LOL no serious he can be a grow up persian, turkish or greek pirate ...

In that case, Women's Costume of the Near and Middle East by Jennifer Scarce might be of some use to you. The pictures are all over the place as far as timeline is concerned, so you'll need to be careful about the dates, but there are some relevant to the GAoP. Also, google Lady Mary Wortley Montague images for portraits of her in Turkish clothing. She brought back the style after she and her husband were in Turkey as diplomats. (She also is credited with bringing back inoculation for Small Pox).

If you do decide that you want to make an outfit that needs stays, you could use hemp cord instead of reed or metal boning, and should have a bit more flexibility. Some b-dance stuff works in stays, but it's definitely easier without *S*

[LadyBarbossa]

The one thing I can add to this, is a pair of stays... they are comfy! If they are not, they are not made right or correctly. It's more meant for support, as well as style. And when you are hauling about firewood and cooking, leaning over a lot, bending, moving, etc... it's the worlds BEST back support and keeps you from wearing out too soon. :)

Ren Faires I have attended have had a massive lack of history to them. I've never been impressed with them.

~Lady B