Yesterday I read a very frustrating #Bridgerton interview that Said Some Things about corsets, and since today's pretty quiet (big snowstorm up here!) I thought I would do a thread on corsets of the late 18th-early 19th centuries.
Through most of the 18thc, the fashionable and respectable shape was one that could only be achieved with a foundation garment. As the latest Patterns of Fashion book shows us, there was a lot of craft that went into making a pair that truly fit an individual body.
By the late 1790s, the fashionable shape was *much* different. It was now important to look "natural", with soft curves all over the place. Stays that molded the bust were out. So ... what *did* they wear?
Recent research is turning up more and more of these oddly short and straight-up-and-down stays that almost certainly represent a common step in the transition: mimicofmodes.com/2019/03/transi…
At first glance, they just look like very basic stays, usually made out of boring fabric - but they were worn under the bust, making the shift taut to provide a more naturalistic but still present support!
But this was not The Stays Type for the period. As a major transition into a new silhouette, we can find a lot of experimentation, some of which also made use of actual cups. (I tried to reproduce these from afar for my MA ... it didn't go so well.)
It's really interesting to think of all the ingenuity that must have gone into individual stays/corsets of the period, when there was no one solution everyone was using! But by the Regency, the variety was collapsing, and one style was again the norm.
If you're at all into Regency stuff, you know it. White, slim, cups made with gussets, straps, pocket down the front for a busk.
These did promote an overall slender body, but not specifically a narrow waist. Gowns didn't fit tight to the waist, so why bother? But it's important to remember that that doesn't mean they were made *as columns*.
Corsets made without enough curve are just as uncomfortable as corsets made too small in the waist, if not more so - they put pressure on the high hip and lower back. So Regency corsets very much reflect the shape of the wearers' bodies.
There's a tendency to assume that 1820s corsets are a bit curvier than 1810s, and 1830s ones curvier than 1820s ones, but since they're all made on the same principle - soft, relatively little engineering - they can't actually change the figure *too* much.
What I mean by "engineering" is the cutting and sewing of fabric into more complex shapes to achieve certain effects. For instance, this 1864 corset has curved hip panels that can flare out more sharply below the waist than the inserted gussets in Regency examples.
It can be hard to date corsets from the 1810s-1830s because their reflection of the body rather than fashion means that you can't just recognize the silhouette as the fashionable one of 1810 or 1824 or 1836. This one dates to 1836, in fact!
Cording was often used as embellishment as much as or more than actual support, so it's of limited use in dating. Beautiful, though! I wish we saw more decorative cording in corsets on film.
When we do start seeing securely dateable features again, it tends to be very heavy cording specifically on the gussets/bust, because the fashionable silhouette in the late 1830s through 1850s was actually relatively flattened.
But again, the overall curviness of the corset in the 1810s through 1830s is not a major key in dating them, because, tl;dr, they tend to reflect the actual shape of the body more than the fashionable silhouette.
(And now that I'm done, it's time to plug Dandies & Dandyzettes again! A new Regency ttrpg/writing guide - the Kickstarter will go live later this month, but you can sign up at the link below to be notified as soon as it's up.) kickstarter.com/projects/20462…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As a break from your doom-scrolling, a thread on embroidery in historical and historically-inspired fantasy fiction. Something I really hate is the way it's often used in these genres to show that a female character is or isn't interesting.
Every heroine knows instinctively that sewing is boring, difficult, mindless, and pointless. Disliking it shows that she's an independent woman whose values align with the modern reader; characters who like/tolerate it are sheeplike and either minor or oppressive.
In The Subversive Stitch, Rozsika Parker notes that “embroidery has become indelibly associated with stereotypes of femininity ... mindless, decorative and delicate; like the icing on the cake, good to look at, adding taste and status, but devoid of significant content.”
So, my thoughts on the Bridgerton costumes. When you get down to it, I'm actually a really big fan of using flashy modern fabrics and hairstyles - it can create a lot of cool visuals and a look that's distinct to a particular production.
What I find irritating, though, is when this is done out of a belief that we're being Not Like Other Girls, because the "average ... period drama" is "restrained" and nobody has ever shifted the period aesthetic to be "scandalous and modern". (Quotes from the Vogue interview)
The fact is that it's actually been really common for period dramas to be sexy and creatively use anachronisms in costuming to make points to the modern audience. This is true across the board, but just as much in Regency-set shows and movies.
Lately I've been thinking a heck of a lot about Regency hairstyles. (This will be a thread. And probably a blog post eventually ...)
We all know what it looks like. A high bun, with curls around the face. But is that what we're seeing in all those portraits?
Those big late 18th century hairstyles usually have what the French fashion plates called a "chignon" - basically a braid or ponytail that's looped back up behind the main business.