The Stays or Corsets of the Regency era

I am currently working on a new historic outfit, based on the very beginning of the nineteenth century empire period. A very interesting period, given the fact that it was a total change from the rococo dresses with grand panniers and rigid stays. Even more because in a time period of 30 years or so, people would be back in big crinoline dresses. It’s like fashion made a 180 degree turn twice in only a few decades. Their slim silhouette and no requirement for any crinolines or starched skirts makes them easier to wear for historic costumers and the costume drama’s of Jane Austin novels instill a romantic image and make these dresses more popular. And they seem so simple. Just a long dress. But this Empire period style does impose a conundrum: What kind of corset would one wear underneath these gowns.

The Empire Silhouette

This new style of dress, with the iconic high waist, was based on the examples of Greek and Roman dress, and was supposed to be more natural. And the shape of these dressed certainly looks more natural than the style in the time of Louis XVI. However, take a close look at the ladies in the engraving above. The idealized form in this period is a long column-like posture, and the fullness of the breast is situated nearly at the level of the armpits. The undergarments would have to provide quite a bit of lift to acquire this shape. And we thought that push up bra’s were something quite modern…

We have quite a few examples of both stays from the Rococo era and corsets from the Victorian era, as shown above. The first giving the body a inverted triangle shape, and the second defining and tightening the waist to achieve that hourglass figure. These shapes are very easily recognizable, and if you search for “Rococo stays” or “Victorian corset”, you’ll no doubt find lots of pictures practically identical to the ones above. But we don’t have a iconic style of corset like this from the regency era. So how did we get from A to B?

From Stays to Corsets

As you must have noticed, I use both the words “stays” and “corset” in the paragraph above. Not only the design of the corsets changed during this period, but also the name by which we refer to the garment is different. The structuring garments from the 18th century and earlier are called stays. But at the end of the 18th century, the term corset appears.

In this ad from 1789, we see the words corset and stays used simultaneously, referring to two different types of garment. While the word stays was used to describe the stiff fully boned garment shown above, which created that inverted triangle shape, the term corset, or corsette, referred to a supportive garment that was lightly boned or quilted. The word corset comes from the old french “cors”, meaning body.  So this garment was literally supposed to be shaped more like the natural body.

These are two paragraphs from the book “The mirror of the graces; or, the English lady’s costume.” from 1811. A book with advise for ladies on matters of taste, elegance, grace and modesty. In the first paragraph it seems the author is against the wearing of stays. There are multiple resources from this period that speak out strongly against stays, and usher ladies not to wear them at all. This gives the idea that some ladies forgo their supportive garments all together! But when we read on, we come to the second paragraph. In this chapter of the book the author describes the layers that were supposed to be worn by a lady. After a paragraph on chemises, she comes to corsets. This seems contradictory, but it is in fact not. Ladies may no longer wear their tight stays, but that does not mean they didn’t wear corsets! As we concluded from the advertisement above, in this transitional period, stays and corsets existed next to each other, and meant two different things. We can conclude the same thing from the chapter about stays and corsets from the book “The duties of a Lady’s maid”, where the author speaks against stays in favor of the softer corset:
Stays, corsets, half stays, short stays, corsette and corselette. So many different options. It’s easy to get confused about what is truly historically accurate, and what kinds of supportive garments were worn in what years. It doesn’t help either that most of the corsets in museums from this time are dated: 1800-1825, or even more vaguely: “early nineteenth century”. Even though this whole period the high waistline was prominent, the silhouette of fashion and the structures of the dresses changed quite a bit. With the earliest gowns from around 1800, the Grecian influence is very prominent, while the dresses from 1825 show a much wider hemline, are more richly decorated, and are moving towards the romantic fashions of the late 20’s and 30’s. Quite a significant change.

Multiple corsets lead to an Empire waist

So what is a lady to wear around 1805? When we look at examples of stay’s in museums, like the page above from the collection of the Kyoto Costume Institute, we see a few different shapes all existing next to each other. The corset on the left is dated 1820, but the other three are all dated “early 19th century”. However, If we look the corset on the bottom and the corset on the right, a few differences are evident. The corset on the bottom gives more definition at the waist and has a medium high bust line, while the corset on the right gives a less defined waist with a more column like silhouette and has a very high bust line. I would therefore argue that the corset on the right was probably worn earlier, I would guess around 1805 to 1810, while the bottom corset is probably from around 1820, like the one on the left.

Then there is also the mention of short- or half-stays. (In period literature the term “half stays” seems to be way more common than “short stays”, which is more of a modern term) These shorter corsets look a lot more like modern bra’s and seem to be quite popular with people making costumes based on these era. Most of these seem to be based on the picture above. this engraving is from the 1818 edition of the English book of trades and library of the useful arts. However, I have my doubts about the accuracy and commonness of stays like the one in the picture above. First of all, this picture is not from a book on dressmaking or corsetry, but from a book of trades. The engraving accompanies a short chapter, only a few pages, about the whole span of ladies dressmaking, and not just corsets. It is therefore unlikely that the author or the engraver were experts in the field of corsets. Secondly, the corset shown above has tabs, which would be quite old fashioned for a corset from 1818. Tabs were in fashion with stays from the 18th century, but I haven’t seen many on early 19th century corsets.

These two stays are from the end of the 18th century, around 1790 to 1800. As you can see, these stays form a sort of middle ground between stays and corsets. These days they are sometimes called transitional stays, because they mark the transition between stays and corsets, but back in those days, they were just called stays. The first one is still quite heavily boned, but the displaying instead of flattening of the bosom is already happening with the cups of these corsets. Gowns from this revolutionary period still had some fullness in the front, so the stays didn’t need to go all the way to the hips to provide a nice line for the dress.

The only short front-lacing corset i have found from the beginning of the 19th century is this one from the Victoria and Albert museum. These are dated 1800-1815. Not boned or corded or quilted at all, and thus giving not much structure to the bust, it is likely that these are “Night stays or Brassieres”, according to the Lady’s Strategem. This rare example resembles the engraving from the book of trades from 1818 the most. However, this front lacing was not at all common. Almost all the stays from this period are laced in the back. According to the 1820’s Lady’s Stratagem the exception to this were half stays made for invalids and pregnant or nursing women.
A more common type of half stays were the “Half Stays a la Paresseuse”, meaning stays for the lazy girl. These are so named because these stays had long straps attached to the closure in the back, which meant the wearer could cross the straps to the front to easily tighten the corset. This meant the wearer had the ease of tightening it in the front, but the corset could sill have a closure at the back and contain a wooden busk in the front giving the wearer structure and an upright position. The images above are a lovely example of this.
Since most ladies didn’t live alone, and there was always a maid or sister or mother present to help you tie your corset, lacing in the back wasn’t really all that big of a deal to get in and out of. However, these Stays a la Paresseuse did make it quicker and easier to get in and out of your stays. These stays seem to have been used mostly for casual dress, when you didn’t need the support of a full corset.

These full length corsets seem to have been most common during the regency era for formal dress, for ladies that needed more support, and just for everyday. These corsets were laced at the back and had a wooden busk in the front. This busk was separate from the corset, sometimes lovely carved, and slid into a pocket in the middle of the corset. This busk provided separation to the breasts and ensured an upright posture. Some corsets had a few light bones in them, mostly on the seams, to provide some structure, but nowhere near as much as the stays from the period before. But a lot of stays just used quilting (sewing different layers of fabric and padding together) or cording (sewing lengths of cord between the pieces of fabric) to provide the necessary structure. All corsets from this period had straps. In the front these were spaced quite far apart, attached to the outer sides of the corsets, while on the back they were quite close together, more towards the middle of the back. This placement also aided with the upright posture, and kept the straps from slipping off the shoulders. The cups of the corset were created by inserting a triangular pieces of fabric, called gussets. Together with the structure provided under the breasts and the straps pulling everything up, these ensured a high breast position. The top of the corset usually reached only to the middle of the breast. The chemise under it ensured that the fullness of the breast would not spill over the top.

Which corset to wear?

So, back to the question at hand; what sort of supportive garment should you wear under an empire line gown? I think it all depends on the time period you want to portray, whether you want a more formal or informal look, and your figure.  All the examples above will provide you with a light supportive garment and give you a raised bust line, all period accurate. If you want a more informal look and easy dressing, you could go for the Half Stays a la Paresseuse. A front lacing pair of short stays would not be my first choice unless you do indeed fall into those groups of pregnant, breastfeeding, or you have a disability. But as you can see from the example from the Victoria and Albert Museum, front lacing garments did exist, and are still period accurate.

I think the most important factor in considering what kind of corset you want to wear is your figure. This is not about your size, but about the proportions of your body relative to each other. Take a look at the garment style you want to create. A fashion plate would be perfect for this, because those display an idealized version of the perfect body shape of the time. And now look at the proportions. Where is the bust line relative to the shoulders? How long is the body compared to the legs, or the other way around? Is the waist quite defined in comparison to the hips and bust, or is it longer and straighter? Now look at your body. How are your proportions? And where should your corset provide lift or structure to resemble the proportions fashionable at the time?

I will take my own figure as an example. I have a quite defined waist, a shorter torso, a bigger bust, and a bit of fullness around the stomach area. The gown I want to wear is based on an example from around 1802. The bust line is quite high and the torso has that long column-like shape i mentioned earlier in this post. This means that to make this gown look period accurate on my figure, I need my corset to provide quite a significant lift to the bosom, and even out the fullness of my torso, making my waist look less defined and my torso look longer in comparison.

Of course a corset, especially a lightly boned one common in this area, will not drastically change your figure, but it can help you to subtly adapt the way your body is perceived by giving you structure in the right places, so your garment looks more historically accurate. For me, considering the fact that I do not have the ideal column-like shape for an 1802 lady, I will go with a full corset, with a front busk and back lacing. I found this beautiful example, from the Boston Museum of fine arts. This one has that typical column-like shape with no defined waistline, which draws the eyes up to the empire line underneath the bosom. 

This corset does have quite an unusual construction at the back though. I haven’t seen this before on any other garments. I’m still a bit on the fence whether I’m going to construct my corset this way too, or if i’m going with the more common lacing all the way straight down the back. Maybe this is a bit easier to get into myself, given the fact that I live alone, but we’ll see. All in all, this does prove that a lot was possible in corsetry in this period. People just adapted their corset to what they needed for their body. And that’s the beauty of clothing: it’s all up to personal preference.