Chemise vs. Shift + a couple other questions

[Kathleen MacLeod]

I'm jumping back into fest sewing after a couple years away (specifically sewing for a court gown), and my grasp of H/A seems to be a little rusty.

1. Who wore a chemise versus who wore a shift? Would it look strange to wear a shift with a partlet (I hope that's the word I want)? I like the look of the straight sleeves.
2. I believe there is a portrait of Queen Elizabeth in a closed-front skirt (as opposed to a split-front with an underskirt. Am I remembering correctly? Is this relatively common?
3. Per the usual, I've waited until the last minute to get this sorted, so what's my best bet for quick headgear--pillbox? Would I wear that with a snood or caul? Period headwear is my big weakness in terms of sewing abilities, and I don't own any cool period hats.

[DonaCatalina]

The term chemise or shift can refer to the classic smock that was worn next to the skin. Most people in the Renaissance also slept in this garment. It is basically the same garment by different names. Though I believe that 'shift' didn't come into common usage until the late Elizabethan era.

The partlet is short garment that covered the neck and shoulders. It could be sheer or opaque depending on the regional preference.



Since you refer to straight sleeves, I suspect this is not what you are asking about.
The closed front skirts were popular at various points in Elizabeth's reign and were influenced by Spanish Imperial styles.

[Kathleen MacLeod]

Oh, very enlightening, thank you! I thought a chemise was the billowy smock with full sleeves gathered at the wrist and neck, and a shift was the square necked, straight sleeve smock seen in Simplicity 2621. Those were the two garments I was trying to decide between. Would the latter be okay to wear with a partlet (I had that term right!)?

Edit: to clarify, I'm looking to make a bodice with shoulder treatments but no sleeves, so the sleeves of my undergarment smock will be the only sleeves you see. That's why I'm asking about styles.

[isabelladangelo]

The chemise is the word we still use today for underwear top or a slip that has a top to it.   The works smock, shift, and chemise are all used pretty interchangeably.   

Yes, you have the term correct for partlet.  :-)

You can use a partlet for either style (puffy "Italian" camica/chemise or the more fitted early English shift) however, in England, the styles for shifts/smocks changed over time.  The later the 16th C you go, you'll start to see more "puffy" sleeves show up there too. 


I would highly suggest two pages for you to look at (each have extant examples):

http://www.elizabethancostume.net/chemise.html

http://realmofvenus.renaissanceitaly.net/library/camicia.htm

One is English focused and the other Italian - the Germans tended to follow the English styles. 

What do you plan on making your shift out of?

[gem]

Dona C is technically correct re: terminology. Chemise/shift/smock/shirt... they're all terms for the same undergarment, from different eras. The English would have mostly used "smock" during the Tudor/Elizabethan; "shift" was the term used much later (during the 18th C. especially). Sleeve width varied according to the gown sleeves worn *over* them.

But I think Renfair-jargon-wise, Kathleen, *your* distinction is actually a very useful one! I knew exactly what you meant from your post.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it was *never* done, but I can't recall seeing portraits of ladies in just their plain, narrow shift sleeves; it would have been uncommon for a gown to be sleeveless at all (exposing all of the chemise sleeve), unless the sleeves were heavily decorated.

This is a nice portrait from 1657. You can see that her innermost sleeves are relatively narrow, and the outermost sheer sleeves do most of the billowing. It's hard to say whether those are the sleeves of her chemise or a matching blackwork sleeve/partlet set, as is likely the case here, where there's a visible difference in the weight of the fabrics. At any case, this may be a nice starting point to get your juices flowing:

[isabelladangelo]

I wouldn't go so far as to say it was *never* done, but I can't recall seeing portraits of ladies in just their plain, narrow shift sleeves; it would have been uncommon for a gown to be sleeveless at all (exposing all of the chemise sleeve), unless the sleeves were heavily decorated.

Not exactly.   

We must always keep in mind that portraits were made most of the time with the sitter being shown in their beast apparel - or better.  Often, elements were added to make the portrait look even better than the sitter really was.  Portraits were also often done of "fall" or "spring" clothing - not the midst of summer when it's too hot to sit and the paint.   

Think of how it was before the age of the digital camera - you needed to save film so you tried to take only the very best photos.  When people went to get their portrait photos done (family photos) it was almost never of everyone in their everyday jeans and favorite t-shirt.   It's all in their Sunday's best or, at least, nice button down shirts, nice dresses, ect.   The same went for portraits back in the 16th Century - you aren't going to wear your everyday clothing to get your portrait done in.

That's why I love the illuminations and the landscape paintings.  They tend to show people as they really dressed.  Take the Fete at Bermondsey:



Even though people probably did dress up a bit for the fete, what they would wear was a lot closer to "normal".  Take the ladies dancing on the right hand side -  sleeveless with aprons, petticoats, and a pair of bodies.   It was perfectly acceptable to take off your tie on sleeves - or not wear them at all- in England; just not when you are sitting for a portrait normally.

In Italy, they had no problem with sitting without sleeves and showing off their chemises.  Because it's always hot in Italy.   

[gem]

I wouldn't go so far as to say it was *never* done, but I can't recall seeing portraits of ladies in just their plain, narrow shift sleeves; it would have been uncommon for a gown to be sleeveless at all (exposing all of the chemise sleeve), unless the sleeves were heavily decorated.

Not exactly.   

Kathleen's question was specifically about court gowns, hence, the sort of thing you'd have your portrait painted in. I mean to say that I have never seen a portrait of a woman in what we'd consider a court gown where the sitter has plain, straight chemise sleeves visible.

Here's one of my favorite peasant images, of French farm workers from the early 16th century:
(You ought to see the men in the other half of the image; they're just in their braies!  )

...But I didn't think that's what Kathleen had in mind.

And even this middle-class Italian lady has her sleeves on for a formal sitting:



All of that said, Kathleen, it's your gown, and wear what you like! I almost *never* wear any of the sleeves to any of my gowns, unless I'm absolutely freezing. I'm making a Saxon (Cranach) gown at the moment, and I have never seen one worn without the sleeves, even when they're clearly detachable. I'm a little worried about this, actually. 

[isabelladangelo]

You also have portraits like the above going on in Italy.  :-) 

Many court gowns also had tie on sleeves because it got hot.   You wouldn't necessarily go bare armed (unless it's Germany or some parts of Italy in which case, even that's out the window), but the smock/shift sleeves were often embroidered to be shown off.   Sleeves are not essential to the overall outfit, historically speaking.