A corset-related rant

I’m currently reading The Alchemy of Murder by Carol McClearly. I have a weakness for crime stories that takes place in the past, and this book is a made-up adventure of the very real journalist Nellie Bly. In short, while investigating a madhouse (by pretending to be mad- she really did that) she realizes that one of the doctors is killing off inmates in a rather gruesome manner. No one believes her, but when Jack the Ripper shows up in London, Nellie is convinced that it’s the same man. She then follows him to Paris, enrolling the help of Jules Verne and Dr. Pasteur on the way. I like it, Nellie is likeable, and the pacing works and it’s definitely worth a read.

However, I did stumble upon one of my pet peeves, and feel the need to air. The peeve is: “A portrayal of an independent female in historical times, must make a point on how much she dislikes corsets.” I know I’m not the only one who made an indignant bounce when Elizabeth in Pirates of the Caribbean complains over the stays she suddenly has to wear. A woman of her class would have worn stays since childhood, even in a hot climate, at the very least for formal occasions. Furthermore, stays that fits aren’t uncomfortable, and there’s no need to tight lace them.

In The Alchemy of Murder, Nellie remarks that she can’t abide corsets and refuse to wear them. Even though this picture is in the book:

I’d say, by posture and lines, that she’s wearing a corset. She’s a slender woman, so I’m sure she didn’t tight lace- something that seems to have been a practice very few really indulged in. Nellie was a working woman who travelled a lot, so I can very well imagine that she laced herself very moderately. But, she was also a woman who worked as a journalist at a time when that was very much a man's world. She was controversial just for that, and she didn’t need anything that could add to people’s animosity toward her. He pictures show a woman who dress nicely, but with no particular flashiness.

Don’t get me wrong, there were women who objected to corsets back then. And doctors, who actually seems to have objected even more. A discussion on corsets and its symbolism and significance, well, that’s a vast subject. A terribly interesting one, but not something I feel I can delve into at the moment, with all my reference literature packed away.

I object to the trick of showing independence in women by her views on a corset. I can see where it stems from- a corset is for many (most?) a garment that is uncomfortable and restricting and something women have liberated themselves from. So a woman in a historical setting that objects to corsets, is per definition liberated.

I object, because it totally disregards the why’s of a corset. The social pressure, for sure. The demands of fashion and how far people go, in this very day too, to be able to pull it off. Even practical purposes. Corsets, as being underwear, have always been erotized, but a 100 years ago it wasn’t its sole purpose. A corset was also a bra, or something that held your stocking up. Today a corset is either seen as a torture device or used to titillate and I think many forget (or never even knew) that there can be other functions.

This became rather long and ranty, I’m afraid. Not too unclear, I hope. Heap your opinions on me now, I’d like to hear what you think.

Progress!

All the lacing holes on the stays are done! Weeee. Well, if you don't count the ones that the shoulder straps will sport- there are no shoulder straps yet. On to the boning, but first, the battante. Which is now completely cut out. Oh what a pain silk sateen is to cut! Slippery, slippery, slippery! I'm used to working with silk taffeta, which is a dream to cut.

And speaking of silk taffeta, I was drooling over B. R. Exports wonderful fabrics, and came across these:

http://www.puresilks.biz/store/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=335

http://www.puresilks.biz/store/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=1493

Don't you think those would make great battantes? I think taffeta would drape better in a battante than the sateen will, and I really love those striped ones in the paintings. I think that if I will like my battante, I will make another, striped one. There will be more 18th century weekends, and a battante would make a wonderful morning gown, even when I will be able to wear my stays again.

Robe battante- my plans

After looking at various paintings of robe battante’s, the next step was to see what can be seen when it comes to extant clothes. As my time-frame is so limited I haven’t been able to find much, undoubtedly there are more of them out there than I know of.

I have found pictures of two robe battante’s and one casaque. I’ve also studied the patterns for a robe battante and a casaque in Norah Waugh’s The Cut of Women's Clothes, 1600-1930 and found that the cut varies. The battante and casaque in Waugh are cut very similar to each other.

They have a loose pleat in the front and the side are cut like an L, with the shirt angling out from the tip.

The other battante I’ve found a picture of seems to be cut without the front pleat, instead there is a collar that makes it looks like it has a pleat. I can’t be positive about that, but to me it looks quite alike this casaque, which I know have a collar and no pleat, as it is described in detail, as well with a pattern, in Hammar & Rasmussen’s Kvinnligt mode under två sekel

This casaque and its quilted petticoat was probably a wedding gown and are made out of yellow silk. The petticoat has unfortunately been severely altered and don’t have its original shape anymore.

The pattern is different not just because it lacks the front pleat, but because the side is cut like a (and the shirt part is just a continuing line outward.


So, with two different patterns, I had to decide what patterns to use. I’ve actually already made the casaque, albeit in a shorter version, a couple of years back I was very short of time, so omitted the collar and the shaped cuffs. It would have looked much better with it.

It’s sewn in blue cotton and worn over pocket hoops, which worked well enough.

However, the battante was worn over panniers, not pocket hoops and can you imagine, I happen to have a pannier that I haven’t had anything to wear over. Made it a couple of years back in red linen, and it really should be aired, don’t you think?

But back to the pattern question. Having already tried one pattern, I guess it’s only natural to want to try the other. So I’m using the patterns in Waugh as a template. I don’t feel any need to make an actual pattern, as its so many straight or angled lines and I use a ruler to draw the pattern directly at the fabric. I have a basic 18th century bodice pattern that I use as a guide for the armhole as well as a basic sleeve. I’m using a fabric that’s been laying around in my stash for several years.

It’s greenish gold silk sateen. I must confess that I would have loved to make a striped battante, but with this fabric already being around and being gorgeous, it isn’t too much of a sacrifice to use.

Robe battante- the inspiration

In three weeks time I’m going on an 18th century weekend and as I won’t be able to wear stays, I need clothes that are loose. I already have simpler clothes, but I really wanted something nice for the evening and though a robe battante would be a very good solution. We will ignore the sheer madness of attempting one- I did try to get the voice of reason, but everyone I asked told me to go for it. I promise, I will not kill myself in making it, if I can’t finish, then I won’t try to finish.

A robe battante, or volante, is a loose gown from the early 18th century with the back in watteu pleats. Worn over panniers it gave the wearer a rather bell-shaped silhouette.

Though an informal gown it could certainly be worn at social gatherings and in painting by Nicolas Lancret and Jean François de Troy engage in various pleasant pastimes, wearing this comfortable gown.







As you can see above the neckline generally seems to be V-shaped and the front may be open down to the waist. Winged of shaped cuffs seems to be most common. Being so loose it could certainly have been worn without stays, but on those gowns that are open, it seems to reveal laced stays underneath. I don’t find that so odd- for many women it can be uncomfortable to go without any support at all. And stays was what you wore, something you put on at a daily basis without thinking about it. Stays aren’t in itself an uncomfortable garment and can be laced so it just gives a nice support.

It’s hard to see on the picture above, but the front is close by tiny silver frogs. Very cute. The collar is rather odd, though. Again it’s hard to see here, but it looks like a “fur” made out of small loops.

The battante had a little sister too, the shorter casaque. Here a very striped one.

Even more 17th century

The last batch of 17th century ictures. I realize that there are nothing after 1680. I don’t care much for that fashion, but perhaps I should dig in a little to complete the century.

Catherine of Braganza in her ridiculed Spanish fashion, in 1661.

From the same year, a more fashionable (if you weren’t from the Spanish peninsula, that is) lady in a nightgown.

A more modest fashion from 1662.

Well, this is 1662, too.

I love the pleats on the sleeves!

1665. More backs!





A French court lady.

Barbara Villiers

The Swedish queen Ulrika Eleonora the older.

This miniature is by her hand. Rather expressive work.

Toilette in the 1670s.



1671

1675

Paper on extant 17th century garments

Stahlrose kindly provided me with a link to a paper about extant 17th century clothes in a private collection. It’s in German, which I don’t read, unfortunately, but it must be able to run it through some kind of translation. It’s interesting anyway, as there are patterns for the clothes as well as pictures! Very, very, nice! You can find the paper here, and it’s possible to download it.

Excuse me while I squee a little.

Ahem. I’m all right now. It makes me wonder how many extant garments there really are out there that we never hear about. I mean, how many of you know that there’s a rather big collection of men’s clothes from the 17th century in Stockholm?

Hmm, I really think I need a 17th century icon…

Shoe-love

I guess that there’s no secret that I’m a bit shoe-mad. I love buying shoes and have long lamented that it’s so hard to find shoes that are fun. I don’t know how it looks in other countries than Sweden, but I find that if a certain style is modern, then it’s very hard to find other types. So despite my love for footwear, there can sometimes takes a very long time between purchases, simply because I don’t like a certain fashion. Online shopping has helped there. I’m lucky in my feet, they are neither narrow no broad, so it’s easy for me to find shoes that fits. And now I’ve found a place, thanks to Moderarkivet where you can actually design your own shoe. Guess what I’ve been playing with lately…Anyways, it’s called Shoes of Prey and the shoes aren’t that super expensive I thought they would be. I could definitely work a purchase into my budget and I’m rather tempted… Anyone who knows anything about the quality?

An upcoming 18th century weekend

Gustafs Skål celebrated its 15th anniversary at lovely Lövstabruk in September 2008. Pictures can be seen here. Now we will have a weekend, well, actually four days there, in May. My gentleman and I will only go over the weekend. I really look forward to it! One can choose different rates on the overnight living, so it’s possible to adapt the stay somewhat to your purse. We hope to stay in the manor house! More information can be found at Gustafs Skål’s webpage, though I’m afraid the information is in Swedish.

It vexes me a bit that I will have to be stayless. I will be recovering from surgery, nothing serious, but I won’t be able to wear stays. Luckily I have my casaque, so I do have something to wear.

I’m also considering my velvet wrapping gown.

As you wrap it, it can accommodate a lumpier shape than normal. I’ll have to try it and see how it looks. It would be nice to be able to change for dinner.

More 17th century

It’s pretty clear, when I look at the pictures I have save, that it’s the period 1640-1680 that I find the most visually arresting. So here’s a batch mainly from the 1640s and 1650s. The rest will come in a later post.

I missed this one in my previous post, but as I like it sop much I add it here, even if it’s from 1632. Yellow instead of black- how refreshing!

1645. Isn’t it uncooperative of the sitter to throw a swatch of fabric over her gown?



1650. A woman in stays. Do I need to say more?






1651

1652. A self-portrait by the paintrix- it annoys me that I’ve forgotten her name. And here is an example of where the chemise actually looks like it’s mad of silk. Hmm. Strikes me that it may have been, just because we look at a painter. Somewhere I read that painters wore silk when they painted to protect the paint- linen and wool was much more likely to shed fibres

1653




1657 A rather adorable little girl, I think.



I love the expression of her face- she looks so utterly bored!

1658. I love backs!