Under There! Under Where?: Women’s Corsetry Historically

[0mnip0tent 338]

Under There! Under Where?: Women’s Corsetry Historically

 

I want to preface this with: much like many other members of LOTC, I am a nerd. I am no historian, I am no professional. I am simply an 18-year-old in the car, bored, writing this on a family trip, who enjoys the history surrounding women’s clothing. Take what I say with a grain of salt, and do your own research. One thing that seems to lack an end of debate within women’s history is their undergarments. More specifically, I will be talking about stays, regency stays, and corsetry. Why on earth am I talking about this on a Minecraft roleplay server? Well, because it is a medieval fantasy roleplay, where I see an abundance of different eras of women's fashion, which I love to see, by the way. 

 

Before any stiffened undergarments, most evidence points towards garments that most often resemble modern underwear, strapless bras almost. These were called the strophium, a name which may have changed and morphed into something else as history continued. It wasn’t something people particularly wrote about; their underwear was made of natural fibers, so there is very little left to write on regarding actual medieval undergarments for women. What we know typically comes from artwork, and is pieced together over time. Additionally, women would wear a chemise, a nightgown-like garment worn between their skin and outerwear, which was initially tightly fitted across the chest to provide support. Later on, the chemise would become a looser garment.

 

 

Bikini girls mosaic, Villa del Casale, Piazza Armerina, Sicily, Italy.

 

Under all of these garments I will be mentioning was a chemise, which, as I previously mentioned, is a garment typically made of  linen that keeps clothes off the skin and away from bodily fluids. It was much easier to wash a thin, one-layer article of clothing than multiple, heavy layers of fabric because you sweat on them. Additionally, I would imagine that with so many of these undergarments being made from stiff fabrics, they would not be comfortable to wear directly against the skin and would more than likely cause a rash from friction. From my own experience wearing and owning stays, I can confirm that they would not be comfortable without something underneath.

Chemise, linen, c.1790-1810. The Metropolitan Museum of Art Costume Institute

 

We will proceed chronologically, starting with stays. At the beginning of their existence, ‘stays’ weren’t even called ‘stays’, they were bodies. In the Elizabethan Era, from the mid-1500s to the early 1600s, they were made from layers of linen, and sometimes of metal, for women of higher status. Some bodies were padded and stitched, with whalebone added into them for extra shape and strength. Bodies were conical in shape, unlike what we typically think of regarding historical undergarments, which were often shaped more like the body, and laced up in a spiral pattern, or one that better resembled how shoes are laced. By the 1740s, they had transitioned to calling them stays. Women of all types were wearing them; it didn’t matter your age or class. The most significant difference that came with class was that a common woman would have a ready-to-wear stay, and women of the upper class would have custom-fitted stays. Even little boys and girls wore stays, typically made of leather, to support their clothing. In this time, outerwear was heavily dependent on the undergarments, as they were secured to one another. Stays could be stiffened in a multitude of ways; they could be made of leather, have cording run throughout them, whale boning in part, or the entire stay, or a busk. A busk is normally made of wood, horn, whalebone, metal, or ivory. The most mainstream example of this at the moment would be in ‘Damsel’, where Elodie is being dressed for her wedding. Although the scene is anything but historically accurate, a busk of metal is placed in the middle front of her bodice. Pregnant women would also wear stays called ‘maternity stays’. They are rather similar to typical stays, but instead of only lacing in the back, they would have lacing on the sides to accommodate the woman’s stomach. Stays were not meant to, nor were they structurally able to, reduce the size of a woman’s waist. They were simply stiff undergarments used to pin clothing in place, provide support, and create a fashionable silhouette.

 

1. Woman's stays c. 1730–1740. Los Angeles County Museum of Art. 2. 18th Century Maternity Stays for Reenactments.

 

The regency stay, due to the silhouette of the era, had very little structure to it. As the name implies, they reached their peak of popularity in the early 1800s, but began to appear in the 1790s.  They were made of the same materials as their predecessor, and were still worn over a chemise. The regency short or half stay has a similar shape to the modern sports bra, resting under the bust, right at or above the waistline. Multiple different ways of closure options for these are seen, the most commonly thought of ways being lacing in the front, typically for disabled, pregnant and breast feeding women, and back middle. However, a style called ‘Half Stays a la Paresseuse’ included straps that crossed between your shoulder blades, went down across your waist and tied together in the front. Most women were not living alone at this time, and almost always had another woman in the house nearby to help them get into their stay, it was not normally a big deal… but sometimes you just want to get in and out of your stay faster, and then surely make that accomplishable. Full length ‘corsets’ of this time were normally reserved for formal dress. They were laced in the back, tightest at the top around the chest and loosened towards the hips. Just like the previous stay, regency stays, half and full, had a busk in the front. The fashionable silhouette of this time included a lifted bust, which meant the stays had cups at the chest. The busk provided separation at the middle of the chest and aided in giving a strong, upright posture. They typically lacked most boning, and the boning they did have was typically to support the seams and eyelets of the garment, not the person wearing it. Stays in this era had straps, which gave them a tank top-like appearance. They were close together in the middle of the shoulder blades on the back, and attached on the side of the cups, almost in the armpit, on the front. The main goal of this style of stay was to lift the chest into a higher position, and achieve that fashionable empire waist silhouette.

 

1. Half Stays a la Paresseuse, 1820. Palais Galliera. 2. Half Stays, 1800-1815. V&A East Sourcehouse 

 

Corsets, what got me into historical fashion, with a billion myths surrounding it. I will be mainly focusing on corsets up until 1890, as I believe Edwardian era corsetry might just be a little too modern for this server, because that is when you start talking about your grandma’s girdle. There is a long transitional period between the regency stay and Victorian corset, but what is most commonly recognizable as a corset begins between 1850-1860. The Victorian era corset introduced steel boning, and a smaller waist. The boning was still often whalebone, but steel was added to the mix now. There was another new function that was added in this, hooks and eyes onto the split metal busk. Now, not only did we have the chemise going under the corset. Overtop of the corset would go a corset cover, which looked like a sleeveless blouse. It was made of a thin linen that would be used to smooth out the bumps of a corset, be it the chemise folds showing up top, the busk clasps down the front, or the corset’s lacing in the back. It is a large misconception that the corset was made for waist reduction. While there are many cases of tight lacing, and modern day just ill-fitted corsets, the illusion of a small waist was created by exaggerated hips, chest, or shoulders. When tight lacing was done for long periods of time, over a multitude of months or years, it shifted your organs, causing a struggle while breathing, constipation, and over time muscle atrophy in the back. When properly fitted, a corset would only displace the fat at your waist, and lift the chest like a modern bra. The lacing of a corset at this time was crisscrossed going downwards, but the laces at the waist would be straight up and down so they could be pulled taut at the waist. The average, upper class, corset wearing woman may tight lace on occasion for formal events, like balls. The working woman however was not, and was just wearing the corset as the modern woman would wear a bra. The quote from the musical ‘Six’, “No one wants a waist over nine inches!” is not completely accurate, at most the size you can reduce from your waist with a corset is about 4-6 inches, but for normal wear they usually reduce nothing from the waist at all. The waist reduction is mainly from the aforementioned illusion. It should also be noted that the Victorians LOVED photo editing, which normally involved scraping away at the waist area. This has contributed to a lot of the misconception that everybody and their mother was tightlacing. 

 

 

1. Corset, 1864. V&A East Sourcehouse. 2. Wedding Corset, 1887. Edwin Izod, V&A East Sourcehouse 

 

Once again, I am no historian, but I will be citing my sources at the bottom of this post. If anyone is interested in hearing my ramblings about the fashion of a specific era, ex: Regency, Tutor, Victorian, or, of course, Medieval, please do express so in the comments down below because I love talking about fashion history! The same goes for anything regarding correcting any errors I  make, or if anyone has any questions. 

 

LINKS TO CHECK OUT FOR FURTHER READING!:

https://web.archive.org/web/20181107145050/https://whitepavilion.com/articles/bodice-corset-stays#.W-L72CTP1S8

https://silhouettescostumes.com/the-eras-we-build/stays-corsets-introduction-overview/

https://www.thoughtco.com/medieval-underwear-1788621
https://www.ilsegregoorcostumes.com/the-stays-or-corsets-of-the-regency-era/

https://www.historyextra.com/period/victorian/corsets-history/

https://mmgarciablog.wordpress.com/2016/05/02/strophium/ 

https://old-rags.weebly.com/strophium.html#:~:text=Definition%3A%20A%20type%20of%20girdle,over%20or%20under%20the%20breasts. 

https://asartorialstatement.blogspot.com/2017/02/18th-century-maternity-plans.html

https://youngsewphisticate.blogspot.com/2017/07/regency-short-stays.html
https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O138889/stays-unknown

https://libertabooks.com/costume/underwear-what-was-worn-under-regency-gowns/

 

Edited October 14, 2025 by 0mnip0tent

[Unwillingly 18096]

this is neat, very niche yes but it's refreshing to see posts as they just plainly relate to peoples' personal interests. cool stuff!

[HandsomeFloppa 722]

"I am no historian"

brother this is something I'd expect to come right out of a historical journal or smth, great job!

[KeiaTypeBeat 3277]

"I'm so nervous ab my post"

> 30+ rep

 

Good stuff, I hope you post more in the future 😁🩷