Musée des Arts Décoratifs has a pair dated 1740-60 Stock Number: UF 70-52-3 (detail photo), [ description page with more items, scroll down for stays]. Like the previous examples, these are silk brocade. They are back lacing only and have two small lead buttons on the flaps. The record also indicates there is a half circle metal strip at the neckline which is why it isn’t laying flat on the surface.

The last example of dedicated nursing is from The Textile Museum and Documentation Centre in Catalonia, item number 11814, full view, detail of flap with button. Unlike the other examples, this is more like a bodice with sleeves and is covered in velvet. It laces up the front with eyelets hidden under the velvet. There is one round button for the flap. The lining is taffeta, and a heavy interlining can also be felt.

I notice that all these examples are decidedly fancy. Silk brocade with silver trim and velvet would not be accessible to everyone.

Images of Pregnancy in the 18th century Most of the images of pregnant women I have found from the 18thcentury are satirical. Some show a softer silhouette suggesting jumps or waistcoats, others a more rigid shape hinting at stays, or boned bodices. The man-midwife, or female delicacy after marriage: addressed to husbands. 1773 The Monument du Costume, a series of 26 narrative illustrations engraved by the French print-maker Jean-Michel Moreau le Jeune, shows the effect that pregnancy has on fashion. Plate 13 Declaration de la Grossesse (Declaration of pregnancy) Plate 14 Les Précautions (The precautions during pregnancy) Plate 15 J'en Accepte L'Heureux Presage. (Examining the baby items) Plate 16 N'ayez Pas Peur, Ma Bonne Amie (Do not be afraid, my dear.) Plate 17 C'est un fils, Monsieur! (It's a son, Monsieur!) Plate 19 Les Délices de la maternité (The Delights of Motherhood)

Detail from "The March of the Guards to Finchley" by William Hogarth 1749-50

Detail from The Four stages of Cruelty by William Hogarth, 1751

Nursing in 18^th century art

Many examples are romantic images of peasant women who may or may not be wet nurses. Some are titled to show that they are, and occasionally we find images of upper class women who appear to be nursing their own children. Most examples show a neckerchief or fichu being an important part of the nursing women’s clothing.

Images of mother nursing The Young Mother, c.1770-80 by Mosnier, Jean Laurent (1743/4-1808) French Musee Municipal, Macon, France The Satisfaction of Marriage or, The Happy Family (oil on canvas) by Watteau, Francois Louis Joseph (1758-1823) French Musee des Beaux-Arts, Lille, France Mrs Justinian Casamajor and Eight of her Children, 1779 by Gardner, Daniel (1750-1805) English Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection, USA Young Woman in a Dress 'a la Levite' Breastfeeding her Baby, plate from 'Galerie des Modes et Costumes Francais', engraved by Charles Emmanuel Patas (1744-1802) 1778 (engraving) by Le Clerc, Pierre Thomas (1739-c.1796) (after) French Modern Nursing, 1795 (litho)  by English School, (18th century) The Breastfeeding Mother by Gerard, Marguerite (1761-1837) French Musee Fragonard, Grasse, France The Fashionable Mamma, or The Convenience of Modern Dress, published in 1796  by Gillray, James (1757-1815) English

Images of wet nurses not actively nursing Les adieux à la nourrice (Farewell to the Nurse) by Etienne Aubry French (1745-1781) painted c. 1776-77 Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, 1955.636 The Wet-Nurse by Longhi, Pietro Italian (1702-88) Ca' Rezzonico, Museo del Settecento, Venice The Visit to the Child at Nurse, c. 1788 by Morland, George (1763-1804) English Nurs'd Abroad, engraved by Joseph Strutt (1749-1802), pub. by L. Jeffreys, 1796 (stipple engraving) (pair of 125583) by Stothard, Thomas (1755-1834) (after) English Images of wet nurses actively nursing The Arrival of the Wetnurses by Jeaurat, Etienne (1699-1789) French Musee Municipal, Leon, France Images of nursing (unclear whether it is mother or not) Off to Market by Wheatley, Francis (1747-1801) English

My attempts at stays during pregnancy and breastfeeding

During my second pregnancy, I tried on the first pair of stays that I had made some years before. This pair is made of herringbone twill linen half boned with cable ties (every other channel) and packaged bias binding. It laces front and back through embroidery covered sized 00 grommets. It appears I was trying to use the effigy front as inspiration on the top edge. I can’t remember what I was thinking, it was too long ago. These were finished at least a year before the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie.

The photos (right) show me wearing them at 27 weeks, during my second pregnancy.

The bust support was good, and the back support was lovely! It was actually very comfortable. The plastic cable ties allow the stays to mould over the curves of the body, and didn’t interfere with my ability to bend.

I have also nursed out of these stays. Loosen the top lacing, pull the stays a bit lower on my body, pull the breast up and out, nurse over the top of the stays. Then tuck back in, pull shift back up, and tighten the laces. (Please note that before children I was a B cup.)

During my third pregnancy I decided to make a pair of stays with side lacings for maternity wear, partly because I was starting to get embarrassed about the older pair’s blatant inaccuracies. I decided that this pair would also be for nursing following the examples of nursing stays I had found. Since I needed a stay pattern with the side seam directly under the arm as shown in Diderot, I used patern 15 for stays from Diderot’s L’Encyclopedie “tailleur de Corps” on page 40 of Norah Waugh’s Corsets and Crinolines. I did break the front and back into two pattern pieces per side and shaped the seams like the nursing examples. It is worth noticing that while the side front seam looks straight, it is only straight on the side piece. The front piece is slightly hourglassed shaped, more like the stomacher in pattern 14 of Corsets and Crinolines. When stitching the boning channels I left ¼” (6mm) space around the flap that would be bound. I closed the bottom of the flap, so I inserted the boning below the flap from the bottom, and the boning in the flap section was inserted from the top. Then I closed off the channel on the top of the flap, so I could insert the boning above the flap, in from the top.

Amanda's Stays pattern (download larger pattern )

My stays are made out of two layers of heavy linen, completely boned with ¼” (7mm) German plastic boning, bound with ½" (13mm) linen tape. The channels were machine-made, but all the rest of the sewing was done by hand. The seams are taped with ¼” (6mm) linen tape. There is a total of 62 hand-bound eyelets. Because of the direction of the boning, and my *brilliant* idea to sew all the boning channels before inserting boning. I had a few channels on the side front that were completely closed. I ended up using my awl to make a hole through the inside layer only to insert the boning through. After all the bones were in I stitched a scrap over the section where the awl holes were made.

 

The eyelets were done and the tabs on the front and back sections were bound before they were connected to each other at the short side seam. After the top was bound, the flap was cut out and bound.

Last was the horizontal boning. I wanted to put horizontal boning, like the Musée des Arts Décoratifs stays have, to stabilize the area. All those short ½” (13mm) bones slide around a bit.

For the buttons, I used four La Mode style 24793 buttons. They are plastic but at 9mm close to the size of the buttons on the original stays. (I pulled the images of the stays into CAD and adjusted the figure until it was the stated length, then measured the buttons. The buttons on the Musée des Arts Décoratifs stays were about 1cm (3/8"); those on the Textile Museum and Documentation Centre stays in Catalonia were about 1.5cm (5/8") and velvet covered.) I had forgotten about buttons till the end and thus turned to my stash. At least they are globe buttons. I decided to use two buttons like on the Musée des Arts Décoratifs example as I thought it would give better closure, coverage and support. Of course it means twice the work to open when baby is screaming….

Stays laid flat, with one flap bound	Flap open	Flap buttoned closed

 

 

Pregnancy

Being prone to procrastination, not to mention having two children, my stays were not fully finished before my pregnancy ended. Here is a photo of me trying them to check strap angle and length on my due day. (Baby was one week late.) You will note that the top is unbound, and the flaps have not been cut out.

The stays provided good back support, but no bust support, instead pressing the breasts down on to the belly. The partial side seam stuck out into the arms in an uncomfortable way. The top of the front was also quite higher than it would normally be.

Given these conditions, I would wager a bet that in period this cut of stays would have been discarded somewhere in mid pregnancy.

Post Baby

However, the side lacing is great for the post-baby figure, the back lacing gap can be perfectly parallel, and the extra space needed in the waist is taken care of on the side.

At ten weeks postpartum, my figure is still not where it could be.

 

Nursing

But how do the stays work for nursing?

Fabulous!

When the flaps are closed, there is no loss of bust support. But when one flap is open, the breast succumbs to gravity, while the other side remains fairly well supported. There is plenty of room to get a good latch, and the flap folds almost completely out of the way.

 

So my final opinion on these stays is that the side lacing works okay for early pregnancy, postpartum, and general weight fluctuations, but not very well past mid pregnancy. The nursing access is great!

Happy mom, happy baby!

 

Maternity shifts

When it comes to nursing clothes, you must think about all the layers that go over the breasts. So a shift that you can nurse out of is important.

The first, and likely more common option is a shift with a wide neckline that has a drawstring. Given the amount of period illustrations showing shifts falling off the shoulder and exposing one or both breasts, this is the style that I chose to use.

The second option is to put a slit in the front neckline. This could easily be a way to modify an existing shift when you do not have the time to make a new one, or if you find the drawstring shift didn’t come low enough. Colonial Williamsburg has a short shift or nightgown in its collection that has a slit at center front, and it has a drawstring too. Acc. No. 1984-79

Maternity gowns

While there are gowns that are specifically designed for, or altered to be maternity garments, I have not seen any gowns specifically designed for nursing in the 18^th century, since the majority of women's gowns fastened in the front. However, when the main fastening changes to the back in the early 19^th century,  we see gowns specifically designed or altered for nursing access.

 

Nursing research for personas

The popularity of Maternal nursing and wet-nursing varied by time, place and social status. Depending on the level of historical accuracy that your event portrays you may want to research the topic more to determine how common mother nursing would be in your time, locale, and status.

Alternatives to stays during pregnancy

Most medical texts of the day warn against wearing stays during pregnancy. Often citing the harm that can be caused to the child, they also talk about the effect that corseting during pregnancy has on the woman’s figure.

The Diseases of Women with Child And in Child Bed by François Mauriceau, & Hugh Chamberlen, published in 1727, even goes so far as to say that straightlacing will cause the belly to be distended after delivery of the child, as well as causing damage to the breasts:

As soon as a Woman finds her self with Child, or mistrusts it, let her not lace her self so close as she ordinarily doth, with Bodice stiffned with Whalebone, to make her Body shapely, which very often injures her Breasts, and so enclosing her Belly in so strait a Mould, she hinders the Infant from taking its free Growth, and very often makes it come before its Time, and mis-shapen. Those Women are so foolish as not to mind, that making themselves slender when they are with Child, quite spoils their Belly, which therefore after Child bed remains wrinkled, and pendant as a Bag, and then they cry, It is the Midwife or Nurse that did them that Mischief, in not swathing, and looking to them as they ought to do; not considering that it came by their strait lacing whilst they were big upwards; which causes the Belly, finding no Place to be equally extended en all Sides, to dilate it self only downwards, whither all the Burden is in that manner thrust; To avoid which, let them use Habits more large and easy; and wear no Busks, with which they press their Bellies to bring them into Shape. ^[6]

Instead it is recommended to wear loose clothing and flat heeled shoes:

She ought likewise to be loose in her Dress, that she may breathe the freer, and not strait-lac'd, and rack'd as most of as them are ordinarily with their Busks under their Clothes, to make their Bodies strait; and amongst other things, they had need take heed of slipping and falling in their walking, to which big-belly'd Women are very subject, because the bigness of their Bellies Hinders them from seeing their way: They will therefore do well to wear low heel'd Shoes with large Soals, to prevent hurting themselves, as too many daily do. ^[7] 

In many of the images depicting later stages of pregnancy a softer silhouette is shown, suggesting that stiff stays have been replaced by jumps or waistcoats. This is borne out by written record when Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough wrote a letter to her granddaughter in 1735.

I wonder you should be so very uneasy after dinner if your stays are not made too long waisted. Though I remember when I was within three months of my reckoning, I could never endure any bodice at all; but wore a warm waistcoat wrapped about me like a man's and tied my petticoats on top of it. And from that time never went abroad but with a long black scarf to hide me I was so prodigeous big.

Who nursed?

Just as it is today, there was more than one way to feed an infant. Breast milk from the mother was always touted as being the best, but wet nursing was still comon, though waning. The family could hire a wet nurse to live in their house or send the child to the country to be wet nursed for several years. Dry-nursing, or artificial feeding was also known but was considered inferior. Without getting too deep into the history of breastfeeding politics, I would like to share some period sources on the subject.

Elizabeth Clinton, the Countes Dowager of Lincolnes was the first woman to be published writing to mothers to nurse their own children in 1622. In The Countesse of Lincolnes Nurserie she actually mentions how some women think breastfeeding is “noysome to ones clothes; that it makes one looke old” ^[10] Even though she herself did not nurse her children because “partly I was overruled by anothers authority, and partly deceived by somes ill counsell, & partly I had not so well considered of my duty in this motherly office, as since I did, when it was too late for me to put it in execution.”^[11]

Elizabeth is most adament that women should nurse their own children but admits that “I doe knowe that the Lord may deny some women, either to have any milke in their breasts at all, or to have any passage for their milke, or to have any health, or to have a right minde: and so they may be letted from this duty, by want, by sicknesse, by lunacy, &c. But I speake not to these: I speake to you, whose consciences witnesse against you, that you cannot justly alleage any of those impediments.”^[12]

 

The Diseases of Women with Child and in Child-Bed chapter 36 starts off with “The first and principal of all the Qualities in a good Nurse is that she be the own Mother of a Child,” and then goes on for several pages about the proper way to select a wetnurse.^[13] It also tells how to dry up the milk supply in women who choose not to breastfeed.^[14]

William Cadogan, in his 1749 work titled An Essay upon Nursing and the Management of Children, from their Birth to Three Years of Age, urges “every Woman that can prevail upon herself to give up a little of the Beauty of her Breast to feed her Offspring.”^[15]

Opinions on the proper nursing of infants then, just like today, tended to vary. Here is a small sampling of the changes in views.

The Diseases of Women with Child and in Child-Bed (1727) suggested that mothers not nurse their infants in the first days but instead wait “until the eighth day of her Childbed at soonest, if not three Weeks or a Month”. Instead the child would be given wine and sugar for the first 3 or 4 days to clear out the bowels.^[16]

In 1749, William Cadogan believed that it was okay to delay maternal nursing for up to two days:

When a child is first born, there seems to be no Provision at all made for it; for the Mother's Milk seldom comes till the third Day; so that according to Nature, a Child would be left a Day and a half, or two Days, without any Food; to me a very sufficient Proof that it wants none.

I am sure it is better it were not fed at all, for it sleeps almost the whole Time, and when the Milk is ready for it, would be hungry, and suck with more Eagerness; which is often necessary, for it seldom comes out freely at first. At least I would prevail thus far, that the Child be not awaked out of its Sleep to be fed, as is commonly done.^[17]

The 16^th edition of Domestic Medicine by William Buchan, published in 1798, advises that infants nurse from their mothers sooner for not just the child’s benefit, but the health of the mother too.

A child, soon after the birth, shews an inclination to suck; and there is no reason why it should not be gratified. It is true, the mother's milk does not always come immediately after the birth; but this is the way to bring it; besides, the first milk that the child can squeeze out of the breast answers the purpose of cleansing, better than all the drugs in the apothecary’s shop; and at the same time prevents inflammations of the breast, fevers, and other diseases incident to mothers.^[18]

Nothing would tend more to prevent the milk fever than putting the child early to the breast. The custom of not allowing children to suck for the first two or three days is contrary to nature and to common sense, and is very hurtful both to the mother and child.^[19]

One has to wonder if the advised long periods before giving the child to its mothers breast affected her ability, or even her willingness, to nurse her own child.

I thought of wet nursing as something that the nobility did, never realising that the last social group to give up wet nursing was the urban commoner of France.^[20] They switched from sending their children to the country to be wet nursed, to sending them to the country to be dry nursed in the 19^th century when artificial formula became a safer alternative. The reason they chose to do this appears to be based on economics. The loss of the mother’s wages from working outside the home was more than the cost of a wet nurse for three or four years.

It was traditional for the French royal children to be wet nursed, although royal children of other countries were mother nursed.^[21] It seems that the English bourgeoisie embraced maternal nursing the most.^[22] In wealthy families, even if the mother breast fed, the child still had a nurse to take care of it in other ways.  It seems, from reading Cadogan, that a child was sent out to the country to be wet nursed after the first month.^[23]

It is probably safe to say that wet nursing was less common at the end of the 18^th century than at the beginning, and that peasants often nursed their own children.

If you are a historical re-enactor I would advise you to research how your particular persona would feed her child, as there is a wider range of variation depending on era, location, and social class than I can cover in this article.

Dry-nursing or artificial feeding did have its place in the 18^th century, but is outside of the focus of this article. Here are a few resources:

An English 18^th century baby bottle in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston,

Baby Bottle museum online

Infant Feeding Devices blog

 

While most medical texts on nursing do not mention clothing, one can occasionally find a tidbit here or there. In William Buchan’s Advice to Mothers, 1804, he blames the old style stays for mothers not being able to nurse because of “want of nipples”. Even though young women of the Regency era would not have worn 18th century stays, their mothers did and thus the sins of the mother pass to the daughter. If I am right in assuming that the “want of nipples” is referencing inverted nipples, I wonder whether we are to assume that women who have inverted nipples should curse their fore-mothers for wearing stays?

Among many improvements the modern fashions of female dress, equally favourable to health, graceful ease and elegance, the discontinuance of stays is entided peculiar approbation. It is, indeed, impossible to think of the straight waistcoat of whalebone, and of tight lacing, without astonishment and some degree of horror. We are surprised and shocked at the folly and perverseness of employing, as an article of dress, and even as a personal ornament, what must have checked youthful growth; what must have produced distortions and deformity; besides, occasioning various irregularities diseases. I need not point out aggravated mischief of such a pressure on the breast and womb in a state of pregnancy; but I must notice a defect very prevalent among young women of the present day in London, who, though they have not worn stays, may lie fairly presumed to inherit, from their mothers, some of the pernicious effects of such a custom.

The injury to which I allude, is the want of nipples. This unnatural defect, seems to have originated from the use of laced stays; and as children so often resemble their parents in outward form, it is not improbable that the daughter may bear this mark of a mother's imprudence ,and may even transmit it to her own female children. Where stays have never been used, the want of a nipple is as extraordinary as the want of a limb; and no mother is found thus disqualified from discharging one of her most sacred duties. But in London the instances are too frequent to be ascribed to accident, and cannot, perhaps, be accounted for more satisfactorily, than in the manner here suggested.^[24]

 

A final word on comfort and health.

The most important part of your pregnancy is taking care of yourself and your growing child. As the period texts show, the wearing of stays can be detrimental to the health of both mother and child. Never lace your stays tightly! If you participate in historical events and could be doing so while pregnant, you might be best off making adaptations to your wardrobe to accommodate this before conception. Personally, I would heed the advice of Andrew M Levret, and not have any boning in the front of the support garment, be it stays, jumps, or waistcoat, with a fastening in front. This would likely serve best for the duration of the pregnancy better than fully boned, side-lacing stays.

When it comes to nursing health, do not lace too tightly over the breasts. The last thing you want is a case of inflamed breasts to ruin your event.

If you have any concerns, defer to the advice of your medical professional.

---