I agree with Kate B and Sharon C that at this time - first half of 1700s, that the girl appears to be wearing stays typical of the period. As said, not breathtakingly tight at the waist, but specifically designed to give the correct posture and conical shape of the period. This was very upright (physically = morally) with shoulders well pulled back by the shoulder straps and diagonal bones over the shoulder blades at the back. You can go some way towards this shape today by wearing a wellboned pair of stays. At this time children started even quite stiff stays when they started to walk, so the skeleton was easily corrected (or deformed!) to be in the proper shape.
I think there are 3 things to remember when looking at the girl's shape. - there probably *was* some artistic licence employed. - if it was a photo the girl would have been told to exaggerate the correct posture just for the time to "click". Even today models complain about the postures they have to adopt for the fashion photographer. Perhaps the same for the artist? - yes, she was a very different shape from a girl of today. Long term stay wearing from infancy was criticised by doctors for this very reason. Finally, we should remember that this shape was dictated by a lot more than fashion. Working women required broad shoulders and backs to do their work, therefore to differentiate yourself from the working class you had to have a narrow back. Stays really can narrow the back, so mothers would think it proper to put their daughters in such stays. Ditto being erect. Rickets and work from an early age caused stooping and malformations. An erect posture showed that you did not (and probably could not!) work. Annie _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
