Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

On Taking Great Pains with Fashion

Throughout history the human body has been pulled, poked, squeezed, and generally manipulated into many and various confining devices designed to enhance one bodily feature or detract from another; all in the name of beauty and fashion. With the possible exception of Chinese footbinding, no form of confinement is perhaps more well known than the European custom of tight lacing through the use of stays and corsets. Tight lacing was considered the height of conventional fashion though at the same time thought hazardous to one's health and well-being by many in the medical profession. In the following pages I will discuss briefly the origins of stays and then take a look at some of the negative aspects of tight lacing and why doctors were so opposed to the restricting devices, especially for children. We'll also look at what kept tight lacing fashionably popular in the face of such severe criticism. Even though many secondary sources use the terms 'stay' and 'corset' interchangeably this is technically incorrect. The corset is a garment similar to stays, but is different in its cut and is also associated with the 19th century. Therefore, in this article I shall use the term 'stay' in referring to the 18th century garment and 'corset' to denote the 19th century garment. My quoted passages will reflect the author's usage.

The 18th century stays originated from the boned bodices of the mid-17th century. The stays were worn like a vest that descended to the waist and beyond in front and back and through the use of tabs around the bottom were cut to flair out over the hips and enhance the slender appearance of the body. The lacing was most often in the front, though there were back lacing styles as well.¹ They were made from layers of heavy linen or canvas, often stiffened with glue or paste, and featured whalebone strips inserted and stitched in between the layers. Full-boned and half-boned stays were available depending upon how much support was desired.

How did the custom of wearing stays develop and why was it so popular in the 18th century, even after opposition from the medical field became widespread? The popularity of tight lacing developed around the 16th century as an attempt to support the body and make the waist appear smaller than it was naturally. To such a degree was this look desirable that women were striving "all they possibly [could] by straight lacing themselves to attain unto a wand-like smallness of waist, never thinking themselves fine enough till they [could] span the waist".² The emphasis on an extremely slim waistline continued for nearly two centuries with only a few brief intermissions.³

By the 18th century the social philosophy emphasized discipline, formality, grace and elegance. Proper behavior for young people was to act at all times with self-control. Tight cinching of the torso achieved the maximum in disciplined behavior and controlled movement because the wearer was so very limited in movement period. It was customary to begin this disciplined training very early in life. Babies were often equipped with tiny stays. For girls, wearing stays became a lifelong requirement, but little boys were usually taken out of stays at about age 6 and breeched.

Even though stays and tight lacing were fashionably popular, there were many doctors, philosophers, and educators who emphasized freedom, especially for children, and pleaded for years to stop the practice they considered injurious to health. The pleas of such people as Dr. Samuel Tissot, Dr. William Cadogan, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, however fell predominantly on deaf ears.

These concerned educators felt that wearing stays to achieve a slimmer waist and therefore beauty did exactly the opposite. They did not see feminine beauty at all in strait lacing, but only a contortion of the natural shape of the body and a cause of damage to vital internal organs. However; it wasn't just learned men who condemned the wearing of tight stays. Hannah Wooley wrote in The Gentlewoman's Companion in 1675 that "by cloistering you up in a steel or whalebone prison [a door is opened] to Consumption with many other dangerous inconveniences, as Crookedness…⁴ Ironically, the descriptive expressions "strait-laced" and "staid" from the mid-17th century Puritan ideal can be directly linked to the fashion of tight lacing, but "instead of condemning this fashion; commended tight lacing on the grounds that it disciplined the body—a theory quite contrary to the original purpose of allurement."⁵

John Locke's was among the earliest voices of prominence to denounce the practice in general; but while concerned about women, his primary concern was more for the children as he pleaded for "freedom from physical compulsion".⁶ Locke himself was greatly influenced by Komensky in the 17th century who was the first effective supporter of children's rights.⁷ Locke stated in his famous work On Education written in 1693, "… I have seen so many instances of children receiving great harm from strait lacing, that I cannot but conclude, there are other creatures, as well as monkeys, who, little than they, destroy their young ones by senseless fondness and too much embracing."⁸ He blamed "Narrow Breasts, short and stinking Breath, ill Lungs and Crookedness on the effects of hard bodices and pinching clothes."⁹

In 1741, Dr. Jean Baptiste Winslow read a paper in French, the first in the vernacular, describing the damage done by stays to the ribs, which, forced inwards by stays, caused the intestines, liver, kidneys, lungs, and heart to be compressed; he was also concerned about damage to the pectoral musc1es.¹⁰

Dr. Samuel Tissot wrote in 1772 his Disorders of People of Fashion in which he states that "the very means designed to make fine shapes are the causes of deformity." Included in Tissot's list of injuries caused by wearing stays was "loss of digestion, clogged bowels, confined intestines, weak bones, and symptoms resulting in the green sickness.¹¹ Samuel von Soemmerring elaborated more on the potential carnage to hapless female organs caused by consistent tight lacing in his Cohors Morborum: "thirteen diseases of the head, twenty-three of the upper body, fifty one of the lower body, and twelve maladies of a general character such as epilepsy, melancholy, and atrophy."¹²

Jean-Jacques Rousseau also made his feelings about tight lacing known through his writings. Like John Locke, he was a crusader for the children. His book, Emile ou L'Education, written in 1762, "even though highly controversial and scandalous, did more during the latter part of the century to enlighten mothers and educators on the dangers of unnatural dress."¹³ In Emile Rousseau stated:

The limbs of a growing body ought to have room in their garments. Nothing ought to hinder either their movement or their growth; nothing too tight; nothing which clings to the body; no belts.… The best thing to do is to leave them in smocks as long as possible, then to give them a very large garment and not make a point of showing off their figures, which only serves to deform it.…¹⁴

Not all of those concerned about the use of stays were on the extreme end. There were those who advocated their use but stressed moderation and frequent sizings. Nicholas Andry, the most famous orthopedist of the age wrote Orthopaedia in 1743 which became the standard text on orthopedics for 18th century Europe. He stressed above all else for "parents…to give their Children new Stays frequently and not grumble at the Expense. A pair of too tight Stays in eight Days time are capable of spoiling the Body entirely, especially if they press up the fore part of the Chest." Moreover, the stays must "stand out at a distance of two Fingers breadth from the upper part or changed for new ones…"¹⁵

German physician, Gottlieb Oelssner also described himself as a "moderate"; he was not opposed to orthopedic, preventative or protective corsetry. Oelssner asserted that all sorts of respiratory and digestive diseases, consumption, convulsions, and breast cancer were all due to over-tight stays.¹⁶

Unfortunately, the majority of the anti-tight lacing writings reached a limited audience because most of the contemporary literature was written in Latin, with a smattering in German, French, and Dutch. Thus, only professional colleagues and those able to read Latin would be influenced by the messages of Locke, Oelssner, and the others. Most likely this is one reason why the fashion of tight lacing continued in popularity even in the face of such strong dissenting literature.¹⁷

And what of the manufactures of stays? Perhaps they feared early on a possible influence of philosophers like Locke on their buying public and so were careful to word advertisements carefully. An early advertisement by Henry Gough in 1730 stated specifically that his stays were "…made of the Best Goods and work as well as keep ye Body strait and in Shape, when those [yet] are made of Cheap goods and slight Work will soon wear out of which many Repent the wearing when they burst out and let the Body grow deformed which by a good stay might be prevented."¹⁸

Sieur Doffemont, a Master Tailor for women who was employed by the royal household, wrote the earliest surviving tract supporting the use of stays in 1754, a 12-page advertisement which "enjoyed Approval and Patent from the Royal Academy of Surgery." The tract was also approved by the "Faculty of Medicine and at Court".¹⁹

As previously mentioned the use of stays as an orthopedic device was often given greater acceptance than stays as a purely fashionable restraint. Many stay makers contended that the continued use of stays was necessary because in cities where "children breathe thick air and live too close to each other [stays…helped increase] stature and preserve the 'soft wax' of the infant body until the bones were perfectly solidified."²⁰ Doffemont further states that contrary to popular practice, boys should not be taken out of stays but instead should wear them through puberty. He also mentions that ideally stays should be worn at night, though there is no substantial evidence for either practice. Doffemont maintains that above all else the stays should be renewed each year to accommodate growth.²¹

One of the hazards of prolonged stay wearing which virtually all women who continued to wear stays for years faced was that they could never stop wearing them, as their stomach muscles, weakened by confinement, would no longer support them. Consequently, even those women who wanted to quit stays and heed the warnings of Soemmerring and Andry found themselves unable to be rid of the habit. As one girl lamented in the 18th century, she had been laced in "vices of whalebone" drawn tight with no relaxation during the day except for occasional illness. "The result was that the muscles were so weakened that the unfortunate girl had to keep on lacing tightly as her muscles were powerless to support her."²² Upon the disclosure of this girl's feelings storms of protest rose from advocates of tight lacing claiming that the practice was "justified because it only [made] girls temporary sufferers." Another devotee claimed that she never experienced discomfort after the first two years.²³ As always, there were those seemingly few, though enlightened souls who understood the folly of tight lacing as evidenced in Autobiography and Correspondence, by Mrs. Delany, who wrote in 1775 :

I hope Miss Sparrow will not fall into the absurd fashion of ye wasp-waisted ladies. Dr. Pringle declares he has had four of his patients martyrs to that folly (indeed wickedness), and when they were open'd it was evident that their deals were occasioned by strait lacing.²⁴

Dr. William Buchan in 1774 summed up these concerns boldly when he wrote:

CLOTHES often become hurtful by their being made subservient to the purposes of pride or vanity. Mankind in all ages seems to have considered clothes in this view; accordingly, their fashion and figure have been continually varying with very little regard either for health, the climate, or conveniency…
The most destructive of them in this country is that of squeezing the stomach and bowels into as narrow a compass as possible to procure what is falsely called a fine shape. By this practice that action of the stomach and bowels, the motion of the heart and lungs, and almost all the vital functions, are obstructed. Hence, proceed indigestions, syncopes, or fainting, fits, coughs, consumptions of the lungs, &c.²⁵

Not only was tight lacing a flourishing fashion statement for young girls and ladies, but it was often the cause of a miscarriage or accidental abortion as the tight lacing frequently continued through pregnancy. The German Kositski stated blatantly "that tight lacing during pregnancy was used more effectively than any other abortifacient…"²⁶ Besides abortion at any stage of pregnancy, flattening of the nipples, which impacted on lactation, and latent diseases were blamed on tight lacing. One doctor constantly reminded his patient, while she was enduring labor, of the fact that "her sufferings were due to previous tight lacing."²⁷ Dr. Hugh Smith, in his Letters to Married Women…, cautions against the continuation of lacing during pregnancy. He praises those who "[give] themselves room in the waist… I believe no one denies that their shapes were greatly injured by the stiffness of the stays."²⁸ To justify the maintenance of tight lacing were claims that stays were necessary during pregnancy to support the child, and after delivery, to retain the figure.

With the approach of the 19th century, it was still socially mandatory to maintain that narrow waistline to show off one's status.²⁹ The stay became shorter and stiffer but still pushed up the bust and emphasized the waist. The term "corset" also became more commonly identified with the garment. With the progressing century, fashion demanded the waist to be pulled in to the "utmost severity of tight lacing" which would continue to the Edwardian period.³⁰

In 1803 Dr. William Buchan wrote in Advice to Mothers, that he "… need not point out the aggravated mischief of such a pressure on the breasts and womb in a state of pregnancy…"³¹ Dr. Thomas Bull, forty years later, allowed corsets to be worn during pregnancy if they were constructed accordingly:

…the corsets worn during pregnancy should have lacings over each bosom so that they may be loosened or otherwise, at pleasure… They should also have lacings on each side for the same purpose: and as gestation advances, the unyielding steel blades so commonly used should be removed and thin whalebone substituted.³²

The American Lady's Medical Pocket Book, published in 1833, advocated the relinquishing of tight lacing during pregnancy as proper conduct. Not only was it supposed to save the mother and child from pain, deformity and perhaps death, but it would keep the fetus from developing into a dwarf or monster.³³

The long lists of deformities and diseases attributed to tight lacing continued to be broadcast throughout the 19th century with even greater fervor than before. However, fashion sense still held sway over potential health hazards. There were new and increasing claims that if tight lacing were started early it would not be painful or damaging to health. There were a few attempts to appease those who were so opposed to tight lacing such as the issuance of a light weight corset for more casual "around the house" wear.³⁴

In late Victorian days there was an attempt to change the style of the corset, with the introduction of a straight-busked health corset which was designed to dispense with figure distortions of the existing tight-waisted style. Spearheading this movement was Mme. Gaches-Sarraute, a corsetiere who had studied medicine. Mme. Gaches-Sarraute realized the importance of leaving the thorax free and yet still supporting the abdomen. In fact, she introduced the straight-fronted busk whose design supported and raised the abdomen instead of compressing it and forcing it down. She attempted to eliminate the constricting inward curve at the waist, thus removing pressure on the diaphragm and abdomen, including vital female organs. Unfortunately, the desire for a small waist persisted; hence, Mme. Gaches-Sarraute's corset, advertised as the ±health corset', was still being laced too tightly creating a new distortion, the "S"-curve. By lacing the new straight busked corset too tightly the bust was pushed prominently forward and hips thrown back at extreme angles.³⁵

Gradually as times, fashions, and philosophies changed, the severe tight lacing gave way to a more modified support and eventually, as the Roaring Twenties of our current century came in to practically no support at all. There was instead an increased emphasis on individual freedom in virtually everything. Perhaps John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, William Buchan, and their colleagues finally got their views across to a receptive though belated audience.