Stomacher

[Dinobabe]

I'm asking because I really don't know and am curious.
In the Bristol Ren Faire costume guidelines it says to "avoid stomachers that match the forepart", but on here it seems like everyone has one.  What are the historical justifications for/against stomachers?

Here are the guidelines.
http://www.kugelblitz.co.uk/stgeorge/documents/WardrobeGuidelines2006.pdf

[NicoleBridget]

I don't know why Bristol specifies that but I can say that I personally don't like the look of stomachers that match the forepart.  It almost looks, to me, as if the forepart is growing up into the bodice and there's not enough definition of each piece.  I like to use a strip of the forepart fabric sewn horizontally across the top of the bodice to tie the outfit together.  I read through the entire document and found that I agree with them on just about everything.

[DonaCatalina]

I'm probably going to make a lot of people unhappy here.
Having a stomacher that matches the forepart makes you look wider than you actually are.

I know that this is becoming more and more common for Faire wear and I don't know why.
Modern sensibilities about what should match? maybe?

[Katie Bookwench]

I'm going to have to agree with your theory, Dona -- 20th/21st Century escthetics drive the desire to match up the pieces of a gown to make them a cohesive unit. So many modern suits of clothes are done this way, I think it's natural for people to think of someone's ensemble using the same fashion rules.

I imagine this is what many people assume, especially when one thinks of a wealthy person. I think it is assumed that they could afford an entire suit of clothes that only match each other, and have no need to mix and match, because they have so many other sets of clothes in the closet.

For my part, I stopped incorporating stomachers into my bodices some time ago, so that I might give my bodices more versatility.... but then, I've also gotten away from foreparts and split skirts in favor closed front skirts and doublets. My focus has been middle class lines, and the acceptance that I simply do not have the patience to do my stomacher fabrics justice by beading them.

[isabelladangelo]

I really have no idea why they would put that in.  Stomachers were used, in the 16th c, for pregnancy only.   You can see an example in the Thomas More Family Portrait.   If you had a stomacher, you didn't have a forepart.   The dress only opened to the pelvic bone and was closed the rest of the way.   

[Syrilla]

Isabelladangelo, I have to disagree with you.  QE1 wore stomachers, and she was not pregnant.  You will see in the Flemish painting many of the merchant class folk wore stomachers with the lacing over the top.  So, while the stomacher may have been been used during a pregnancy, I do not think one should concluded that it was only used then.

[isabelladangelo]

Isabelladangelo, I have to disagree with you.  QE1 wore stomachers, and she was not pregnant.  You will see in the Flemish painting many of the merchant class folk wore stomachers with the lacing over the top.  So, while the stomacher may have been been used during a pregnancy, I do not think one should concluded that it was only used then.

Towards the very end of the 16th c, very true.  I was thinking of the earlier half.  Sorry.

Although, I don't recall such in Flemish dress.  I know they wore undergowns (kirtles) with the fitted, front lacing, open over dresses sometimes.   

[operafantomet]

Isabelladangelo, I have to disagree with you.  QE1 wore stomachers, and she was not pregnant.  You will see in the Flemish painting many of the merchant class folk wore stomachers with the lacing over the top.  So, while the stomacher may have been been used during a pregnancy, I do not think one should concluded that it was only used then.

Towards the very end of the 16th c, very true.  I was thinking of the earlier half.  Sorry.

I agree that it wasn't for pregnancy only, but I also agree that it probably started as a "practical" trend. A stomacher meant that a garb could be worn more/longer - a dress could be enlarged or made smaller by simple means - practical for pregnancy/weight loss, inherited garbs etc. Stomachers could also alter the look of a dress, another practical reason.

That doesn't mean stomachers was reserved for a certain type of people - it's status all depended on what materials was used, and how it was made.

I totally agree with you others - out modern "everything must match" sense is a newer phenomenon and not very helpful for historical clothing. Matching dresses and stomachers rarely (if ever) appears in historical clothing (covering the 16.th to the 18.th century) - at least I haven't found examples of any. Correct me if I'm wrong! It could correspond somehow in colours, pattern etc, but it would not be made of the same fabric as the dress. It's visual function was to add a variation to the garb.

But I don't think matching foreparts and stomachers is such a big faux-pas... I agree that it was probably more common to have a stomacher which was embroidered or in other ways decorated, which might not have matched the forepart per se... But the Elizabeth I portrait we discussed in another thread seems to have a matching stomacher and petticoat, doesn't it? Or is it seen as a full dress (also called "petticoat")?

THIS is the dress I'm referring to: http://www.kissthefrog.co.uk/queen.html

ETA: See also this thread: http://www.renaissancefestival.com/forums/index.php?topic=5889.0

[gem]

I think the impulse to match actually *does* come from *casual* observation of 18th C. gowns, where the stomacher often *looks* like it matches the underpetticoat, like in this extant gown:



And this portrait:



What's getting forgotten is that these underpetticoats and stomachers *also* very closely coordinated with the *gowns.* 

I'm thinking this is a Fairwear aesthetic, one of those things that happened at Renaissance Fairs in the early days--someone took the idea of a contrasting forepart and a mental image of stomachers clouded by vague memories of 18th C. images... and combined them.  ...And then it spread from there.  (There's an interesting article on Extreme Costuming about that sort of thing.)