A Varietie of Lacings

Ca. 1740-45 silk robe à la française (LACMA)

The subject of lacing in 18th century garments came up in a costume-related online discussion recently, and I thought it was a little corner of costume history interesting enough to delve into in a bit more detail, with a few examples.  In this particular discussion, lacing referred to either decorative (or sometimes functional) front lacing on garments, not the lacing closures in stays or other underclothing. 

There was a variety of lacing on bodices throughout the 18th century, as you might imagine, some of it quite cleverly executed (yes, "Varietie" in the title above is the archaic spelling, just for fun).   Generally, but not always, this lacing, if intended to be seen, was done in a criss-cross pattern, in contrast to the spiral lacing typical of stays.  I haven't yet found any definitive source(s) for exactly why this was the case, but in many extant garments (e.g. stomachers) where bodice front lacing can still be seen, the lacing is usually criss-crossed, sometimes with a little decorative loop in the middle.  

In terms of garment construction, I can think of four types of 18th century bodice front lacing -- at least as seen in the few surviving examples documented -- but there are probably more.  I'm deliberately leaving out fabric bands, fancy bows (échelles), buckled bands, clasps, and the like (seen in many paintings of the era) that were also used to cross or close the front of bodices, and will be focusing rather on narrower lacing only, i.e. cord-like or fine ribbon lacing.  I'm also ignoring jacket front closures, where lacing was likely more common. 

Here then are the four types that spring to mind fairly spontaneously from my own recall and experience in research.  This, I should point out, is not intended in any way as an exhaustive or conclusive treatment of the subject, but as a brief glimpse of this niche of historical fashion (click on "Read More" to continue): 
​

---

1.  Lacing that formed part of, and was attached to, stomachers:  

​This first type of bodice arrangement (apparently particularly fashionable in England in the early/mid-18th century) usually had lacing run through tiny holes or else worked eyelets along each side of the stomacher, which holes would be hidden by the front edges of the gown when worn.   Often the lacing was of rich silver or gold cord, in keeping with the ornamentation of the stomacher. 

There are enough such stomachers surviving to suggest this must have been a common and fashionable item during the entire period of about 1700 to the late 1770's when stomachers went out of fashion (although front bodice lacing of one style or another certainly pre-dated this period -- see further on). 

The photo of the ca. 1740 sage green silk robe à la française above shows one example of a laced stomacher of the mid-18th century.  Below are just a few more (forgive me if I've misplaced some of the source citations, these are images I've quickly picked up from my laptop file as illustrations).  You'll find many examples of this sort of lacing on extant stomachers of the era.  

1710-20 stomacher (British)

Ca. 1720, silk and metal on linen (English).

Ca. 1720-30 stomacher (British)

Ca. 1740-50 embroidered silk stomacher with criss-crossed metallic cord lacing.

---

Below is a closer view of the stomacher shown in the photo of the sack gown at top.  I do not know whether this stomacher was original to the gown.  At top right in this photo the attachment point of the gold cord lacing to the gold trim on the stomacher can just be seen. 

​Following is another example of this type of laced decoration, on a stomacher finished with eyelets on both sides to take the laces (dated to ca. 1740, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston).  
​

​Nancy Bradfield, in her infinitely useful work, Costume in Detail, describes a gown of ca. 1755-65 in yellow silk (sketches on pp 31-32), shown with a stomacher -- not original to the gown -- which she suggests is of a much earlier date than the dress (she speculates early 17th C.). 

I'm including photographs of the gown, currently in the Snowshill collection (U.K.), to show how -- assuming Bradfield is correct about the possible date -- a stomacher from the 1600's with integral front lacing may have been constructed, and as a demonstration of how long this style of construction persisted.  These photographs are not the best, but if you have Bradfield's book you can see all the details noted by her on page 32 (I've included an excerpt of that page below).  

The gown laid out flat, with the earlier stomacher (not original to the gown).

The linen panels shown, with their eyelets, are not actually part of the gown bodice, but the stomacher. This is very clear from Bradfield's sketch, shown below.

Notice in Nancy Bradfield's sketch of the stomacher below that the eyelet holes are done in an even pattern on the side panels, meaning that the lacing was not intended for a spiral arrangement: 

Bradfield's detailed study of what she suggests is a 17th century stomacher with provision for criss-cross lacing, shown in the photo above.

---

2.  Gowns that laced visibly at front, over a stomacher or similar bodice filler: ​ 
There seem to be few surviving examples of these types of gowns (at least not that have been well photographed), but there are enough to suggest that this arrangement may not have been a rare construction method. 

As can be seen from the following, most of the useful photographs showing interior construction of these gowns have cropped up in private sales (for some reason museums tend to be less generous with photographs of historical garments -- or perhaps simply less thorough due to time and budget constraints).   

​In any case, in addition to the handful of photos I've found over the years, there is also clear documentation of three such bodices in modern costume research works (see below) .  

Janet Arnold's Patterns of Fashion I details just such a gown (described as a "wrapping gown") of ca. 1720-30, including this description of the bodice front:  "Inside the front of the bodice are two strips of linen doubled over with eyelet holes worked in them.  The gown fastens by lacing through these holes over the corset or stomacher."  

This gown is in the collection of The Laing Art Gallery and Museum (U.K.).  Details can be found at this link (although the photographs are not very useful):
https://collectionssearchtwmuseums.org.uk/#details=ecatalogue.267768

The gown is described as an open gown of ca. 1750, remodelled from an original mantua of about 1720, based upon both the textile design and visible stitching on the gown.   Hence the wide dating range. 

Here is an excerpt from Janet Arnold's book, Patterns of Fashion I (page 22), with her sketches of the exterior of the gown and the interior construction, showing the eyelet strip.  These drawings are more instructive than most of the photos on the museum's site, although the "Condition Report" included at the above link has some additional photographs of the unmounted gown (see one example further on):  

The photograph below (from the "Condition Report" prepared by the Laing Art Gallery and Museum) does plainly show the inner bodice panels with their eyelets for lacing over a stomacher (and incidentally provides a clear image of the  fabulous textile itself, not easily imagined from Janet Arnold's black and white sketch): 

---

In Costume in Detail, Nancy Bradfield provides annotated sketches of two gowns (one at pp 17-18 and the other at pp 27-28), both dated ca. 1750, both from the Snowshill ​collection, with provision along the front edges of the bodice (one with metal eyes, the other with sewn eyelets) through which a cord could be laced over a (missing) stomacher.   (As an aside, I know I've seen someone post photographs of at least one of these gowns -- presumably from a visit to the Snowshill collection -- but I can't seem to locate them now that I want them!).  

So, failing photos of the two gowns themselves, I've included excerpts of Bradfield's sketches below.

Bradfield speculates that the stomacher of the second gown may have included bows in the French style (in addition to the lacing), although this seems unusual.  She includes a sketch (also shown below in the second panel) of how the gown might have appeared with its missing stomacher, with the lacing run through the lace at the top of the stomacher before being criss-crossed down the front.  The robings along each side of the bodice would then be pulled in and pinned in place on each side, hiding the eyelet strips.  

The second, similarly styled  bodice documented by Bradfield: 

In the few gowns I can recall of this type, the stomacher has usually gone missing long ago.  We can never know for certain what the stomacher for such a gown might have looked like, although the fairly restrained decoration of gowns of this era (1720-50) might suggest a simple embroidered or smooth stomacher would be appropriate.  I have a couple of examples of extant gowns with front bodice lacing which apparently retained their original stomacher or front section -- see the photos of these further on. 

Visible, decorative front lacing on jackets of the era is well documented (there are a number of paintings and extant jackets in museum collections to testify to their construction), but there are few paintings of women wearing gowns with visible front lacing.  It is pure speculation of course, but the paucity of portraiture leads me to wonder whether this style was considered somewhat déshabillé or négligé, i.e. perhaps something to be worn in leisure hours or by the lower classes.  In other words, not grand enough for a fine lady's permanent memorial in oils. 

One portrait I can recall that displays a gown bodice laced over a stomacher is that of a Mrs. Nathaniel Allen (dated 1763), by the Anglo-American painter John Singleton Copley.  Narrow ribbon is shown here rather than cord per se, but I think it is fairly clear that the ribbon goes through the bodice edges, and is not part of the stomacher.  Perhaps this style was more acceptable as "full dress" for portraiture in America than in Europe.   Obviously the rest of her costume is rich and formal: 

I have seen variations on this theme, with ribbons (rather than actual lacing) being used to cross the stomacher, such as this example from ca. 1730-40, a mantua in the American collection at colonial Williamsburg, not unlike the example described by Janet Arnold.  This type of arrangement, with either narrow or wider ribbon, also appears in a few portraits of the era. 

Another example, this time on the bodice of a magnificent formal robe à la française dated to ca. 1760 (in the collection of the Nürnberger National Museum):  

The extant (European) piece shown below, while simply a "pair of bodies" or stays with sleeves rather than an entire gown, has front lacing that may have been fastened visibly over a stomacher.  

Below is an interesting example of a ca. 1770 robe à la française in richly brocaded silk that clearly has internal eyelets for lacing.  What isn't clear is whether the lacing was purely functional, i.e. intended to be used for fitting purposes, or decorative (to be laced over the stomacher).  There was no indication as to whether the lacing in the photo was actually original to the gown. 

If the lacing was intended only for fitting, and meant to be unseen, then it appears the stomacher would have to be wedged into the narrow space below the linen 'flaps' at the front edges of the bodice.  Unfortunately the picture of the gown as a whole, with its stomacher, is not terribly helpful in this regard, as the mannequin is either the wrong size or shape, or the stomacher is poorly positioned (see following photo).  These photos were taken some time ago from a gown that was being privately sold.   Unfortunately I have no further details. 

Below is a pale pink silk open gown, ca. 1770-90, with its rare surviving matching front piece (not strictly a stomacher).  This gown clearly has eyelets worked into the front edges of the bodice for cording or ribbon of some type to decoratively criss-cross the centre front panel, which itself appears to close down the centre.   This arrangement appears to me to be a transitional style to the later (1790's) front lacing bodices.  Again, this was a privately owned garment for sale a few years ago, so I am not able to provide further information on its origin.   

As one commentator has pointed out below, this pale pink silk gown may have been altered from an older style (something frequently seen in 18th century gowns), yet I would have expected that the eyelet holes left over from the earlier version would be masked or disguised somehow, perhaps with a ruched or plain band (or perhaps by turning the edges under to hide the eyelets).  The fact that they were left visible is a bit puzzling -- perhaps the owner wanted the newer, centre-front closing, but liked to retain the slightly older style of decorative lacing.  We'll unfortunately never know. 

Still, there are examples of surviving gowns of the ca.1775-80 era which have both centre front, edge-to-edge closing and visible lacing: Bradfield provides an example on pp. 63 to 64 of Costume in Detail​:  

As I mentioned earlier, I find that it's typically the privately listed historical garments that get the most thorough photographic attention, and as such are far more helpful to a costume historian (personal viewing of extant museum garments aside).   I also find that antique garments that come on the market are often very illuminating -- even surprising -- in their variety and detail, sometimes to the point of proving that what experts think was "likely not seen" in a particular era did indeed exist. ​

Another interesting example (not unlike those documented by Bradfield) is shown below, again a privately listed garment.  This is a silk robe à la française, ca. 1770-80.  It is without its stomacher, but has eyelets worked into the inside edges of the bodice to hold lacing which would have crossed the stomacher.  The gown also has the typical laced fitting panel at the inside centre back.  In the following photos an effort has been made by the seller to show the effect of the front bodice lacing, and there are very good pictures of the interior bodice construction.  

Lastly is this example, a 1746 painting by the great French portraitist, J.-E. Liotard, depicting a rather unusual garment that appears to be an informal type of gown with the bodice laced over what is not quite a stomacher, not quite stays, but something in between, perhaps jumps without a front closure, yet matching the sleeve cuffs.  The lacing on the bodice appears to be run through metal rings, similar to those seen on some stays of the period.  ​​

​This is plainly not the typical sort of upper class grand portrait, and this costume is likely a regional styling, but it is a beautiful life study of a middle class girl.

---

3.  Gowns with laced edge-to-edge centre front closure (both hidden and decorative): 

Straight centre front closure construction was a style typical of the last decade or two of the 18th century.  The waning of the fashion for open front bodices, and the increasing prevalence of bodices closing edge-to-edge at centre front, marked the end of stomachers and their visible, decorative lacing.  However, lacing as a fashion element (either visible as a decorative element, or hidden in bodice linings) continued to be used on some gowns after about 1770, and particularly toward the 1780's, as a form of closure, visible or not.  

There are a fair number of extant gowns from this period with edge-to-edge centre front closure, but few shown with visible or decorative front lacing (at least of which  I can recall seeing photographs).  Centre front closing gowns (especially the more dressy garments) were often fastened with hooks and eyes or an inner buttoned lining, and many are presumed to have been simply pinned together.  However, visible front lacing is reasonably well documented (see further on). 

There is also documentation of surviving centre front closing gowns with "hidden" lacing closure.  This latter may be more prevalent than we can tell from museum photos: unfortunately museums rarely seem to take clear photographs of the interior construction of historical gowns (for reasons I've never understood, but that's a story for another day!). 

Once again I'll turn to the ever-helpful Ms. Bradfield to provide at least one clear example of "hidden" centre front lacing closure of this period, and two of visible/decorative centre front lacing closures (see the three excerpts below).   For those who may have the book, Costume in Detail​, the full drawings and notations are on pp. 48, 63, and 69, respectively. 

I also note from the recent "Isabella MacTavish Fraser" gown project that that garment (ca. 1785) had a similar inner, hidden laced bodice closure.  Details on the project, including links to photos and the process of making the replica, can be found here:

The Isabella Project (Inverness Museum)

One example of a hidden laced front bodice that has shown up recently (from an online antique garment dealer) includes clear photographs of the interior construction of this type of arrangement.  In this case the garment is a silk bodice only, ca. 1780, with edge-to-edge closure, but missing whatever skirt(s) might have originally been attached.  The inner laced-up construction is easy to see, and in this case appears to have been designed for spiral lacing, not criss-crossed as shown (the two close eyelets on the right are typical of spiral lacing configurations).  Likely pins were used to close the bodice at centre front over the laced panel (see second photo).  

Interior of the same silk bodice.

A final example is the gown shown below, with a bodice intended to be visibly-laced edge-to-edge.  This gown, currently in a Scottish historical collection, dates from near the end of the 18thC. (probably about 1790).  It has features in common with the later "Directoire" and "Incroyable" gowns of this period, with its wide decorative collar, contrast edging, and tight-fitting, full length sleeves.  The bodice construction is the so-called "zone-front" type, a development from the style shown in the pale peach 1770-90 gown discussed earlier.  Unlike that gown, here the panels underneath are laced, and the outer, narrower sections appear to be designed to pin together at centre front. 
  
​As can be seen from the second photograph, eyelets are worked into the outer front edges of the bodice to provide a visible laced closure.   The first photo below gives an indication of the overall style of the gown, the second a close-up of the front bodice construction.  (Photos by kind permission of Rebecca Olds).   These construction aspects are also seen in a gown dated 1780-90 in Janet Arnold's Patterns of Fashion I ​(pp.40, 42-43). 

A similar type of construction (long, tight sleeves, a vandyked collar, and very tightly fitting bodice), can be seen in the ca. 1790 fashion sketch below.  However, this appears to be an open gown (in redingote style) and the centre closures are not visible.   

---

I think it's justifiable to conclude that laced front bodice closures, whether hidden or visible, were not uncommon in the 18th century, given Nancy Bradfield's documentation.  Unfortunately it's been difficult to locate good photographs of extant museum gowns of this type for the reasons mentioned earlier.  A thorough survey of antique garments in private sale catalogues might yield some photographs of the interior of late 18thC. gowns, as would further in-depth study of museum pieces in the manner of Bradfield's work, but both projects are beyond the scope and purpose of this article.
​  ​

---

4.  Stays or other types of "bodies" with their own decorative front lacing (some with integral stomachers):  
​
This style of front display seems to have been worn throughout several decades of the 18th century: extant museum examples that I've found are dated anywhere from ca. 1700 to the 1780's.  It has been easy to find good museum photographs of surviving stays themselves, obviously because the lacing decoration has remained as part of the garment.  

However, locating paintings showing precisely how these decorative stays were worn proves more difficult.  In fact some stays of this sort are so decorative overall that it's difficult to imagine them not being worn as entirely visible clothing, perhaps simply over a dressy shift in the manner of germanic Trachten.  Some such stays even have matching sleeves, suggesting they must have been worn as jacket-like garments, with the visible lacing being the fashion point (see photo further on).  

Stays with visible or decorative front lacing are found in all sorts of variations. Obviously there was also functional front lacing on stays that was never meant to be seen, but here I wanted to focus on the decorative type.

One early example I've found of what appears to be the front of stays visible under the edges of a gown bodice is this portrait (by an unknown American artist) said to be of Mrs. Wynant Van Zandt of New York, dated to ca. 1720-1730.  Her gown appears to be the typical mantua of the Queen Anne period, worn with a diminutively-sized fontange.  I'm concluding that what is visible at centre front of her gown is in fact the front of her stays, since the close boning pattern typical of stays is clearly visible, and the gown appears to have soft edges (unlike the later mantuas and sacque gowns with their rather stiff robings.  

This painting seems to show precisely the type of stays displayed in the photo below, dated to ca. 1700-1720.  There are many similar examples to be found in museum collections.  A few of these follow, dated from 1700 to 1770, some of which have their own matching stomacher.  

The stays above have been dated to later in the century, ca.1750-70.

These lovely stays were dated to ca. 1700-1720. The front panel might have been worn visibly, i.e. under a mantua without stomacher.

Italian silk brocade stays (MET Museum collection) dated by the museum to 1770. (The lacing is probably not original)

It's hard to believe these beautiful creations were intended to be completely hidden from view.  Perhaps the reason so few portrait examples exist is because, again, these sorts of stays were intended as négligé or déshabillé wear, not something to be worn for a formal portrait.  If only photography had existed then! 

As the century carried on and stomachers began to disappear from fashion, stays of this type also disappeared (at least from view), replaced by visible -- or hidden --  lacing to close the centre front of later gowns, as described in Section 3.  

Then there are the occasional museum examples that truly appear to be Trachten-like garments, the elaborate fastenings and gorgeous silk textiles arguing against the mere functionality of an undergarment.  I've yet to locate a contemporary portrait of anyone actually wearing such stays, although these garments clearly existed!  I can only presume that they must have been worn on their own, openly visible, with decorative or colourful lacing, over a pretty shift, in the manner of folk costume, not unlike the use of jumps.  It's also possible that these styles were regional, not the high fashion of Paris or London. 

​In the first photograph below, it seems the little pads would have been intended to sit under a petticoat or skirt, but this still wouldn't preclude the sharply pointed front and back of the stays from being arranged in such a way as to be visible.  Otherwise, the large protruding hooks well below the waistline make little sense.  These hooks are also big enough to have been able to take a ribbon or lacing of some size!  They are also very elaborately and exquisitely made, with prancing deer, scrolling foliage, and a camel-like neck and head for the hooks (see second photo). 

In any event, following are a few examples of these types of stays.  This is one small niche of costume history that would be interesting to investigate further.  

The stays below (ca. 1750) present a similar question: the beautiful centre section (which doesn't appear to be a separate stomacher) and the wonderful metal clasps must have been intended to be seen, but whether under some sort of gown or open over a shift is impossible to know for certain.  The lacing itself and the two rose-coloured bows are likely modern additions for display purposes. 

The stays below (3rd quarter of 18thC.) present a similar question: were they worn partly over and partly under a petticoat/skirt, or entirely hidden?  Again, the gorgeous textile and the long front and centre back tabs would suggest the former usage.  Incidentally, I'd like to add here that many people are fond of dismissing representations of blousy roses as ever being historically appropriate for 18thC. impressions.  This textile seems to say otherwise, although granted these are not quite like the typical Victorian "cabbage roses" (which roses in any case didn't exist in the 18th century).  

Another surviving example of this type of garment is shown below (Italian stays, dated to about 1790).   These are beautifully made of a luxurious silk brocade, and have a little "tail" at the bottom of the back, suggesting they would be worn outside the outer petticoat/skirt.  

The rare illustration below, from about 1795, showing two women of the Strasbourg area, may shed some light on how such "outer stays" were worn.  These ladies, it should be pointed out, are not dressed in the (quite different) regional or "folk" costume of the Alsace-Lorraine region (where Strasbourg is situated), but in their ordinary pretty day ensembles.  Incidentally, the word "paysanne" in French of the era does not denote a "peasant" or signify a pauper; the meaning is closer to a "countrywoman", in contrast to a town-dweller.

The stays in this sketch appear to be quite plainly made, of solid-coloured textiles.  By contrast, given the rich silk brocades, beautiful trimmings and ornate metal loops seen in some museum examples of these types of outer stays, it's plausible this fashion might also have been adopted by stylish city-dwellers and the more wealthy as items for négligée or déshabillé wear at home.  

---

I hope this brief review of the subject of 18th century bodice lacing has been, if not exhaustive, at least an interesting glimpse into some of the variety of ways this device was used in fashions of the 1700's.  I feel that we tend to underestimate the creative diversity of costume in previous ages because we often can't see enough examples to form a true cross-section.  What remains of surviving garments after more than 250 years may not always be a reliably full picture of what was actually worn, mostly because of the vagaries of preservation (including the fact that some garment may have survived not  because they were typical, but actually atypical or unusual).   

I've always believed that the further back in time one goes, the less justifiable it is to indulge in what I call "fashion absolutism", that is rule-making of a particularly rigid kind.  What often proves this to be true is the sudden appearance on the open market of an historical garment in a style or construction that "should not exist"!