New portrait
Tom Reedy
link to a really big image of the painting (313K), the best one I've seen so
far.
http://www.geocities.com/tranquileye/shakespeare/
Charles Gillen
Being something of a digital photo-restoration amateur, I've duplicated the
above image and (with restraint) cleaned it up as it might have looked
nearer its creation date, since now it is 'With Time's injurious hand
crushed and o'erworn'.
My version can be seen at:
http://members.home.net/gillenc/sanders-portrait.jpg
or, for AOLers:
<a href="http://members.home.net/gillenc/sanders-portrait.jpg">Click!</a>
I continue to enjoy the painting for its own sake, but make no comment on
the claimed attribution.
--
NoSpam address: gillenc at home dot com
Charles Gillen -- Reston, Virginia, USA
Rita
Congratulations, Charles, this is a really good image (and also thanks
to John Baker, whose portraits page is very interesting - even for
Strats).
It certainly looks an authentic and attractive Elizabethan portrait to
me, but, as you say, the link to Shakespeare has yet to be proved.
Rita
MakBane
And thanks, too, Reedy.
Toby Petzold,
Direct Descendant of These American Patriots:
Jacob Shapiro (First and Second World Wars)
John Sharp (American Revolution)
William M. Chapman (War of Northern Aggression)
Addison Sharp (War of Northern Aggression)
Robert Allison Davis (Mexican-American War)
Elijah Thompson (War of 1812)
Alexander H. Sharp (War of 1812)
Andrew Jackson McNeill (War of Northern Aggression)
David Jewell (American Revolution)
"Short" Robert Allison (French-Indian War)
Robert Sharp (murdered defending the Tennesse frontier)
Dr. Noah Welles (American Revolution)
and all my other Patriot ancestors whose names I cannot remember just now.
Paul Crowley
> Congratulations, Charles, this is a really good image (and also thanks
> to John Baker, whose portraits page is very interesting - even for
> Strats).
> It certainly looks an authentic and attractive Elizabethan portrait to
> me, but, as you say, the link to Shakespeare has yet to be proved.
The link to the Folio portrait is obvious -- the weird collar,
triangles on it, the buttons and horizontal lines on the tunic,
the orientation of the sitter, the details of his features -- hair,
moustache, shape of nose, ears, physically impossible
upper nose/eyebrow line, etc.,etc.
The only question is which was the original and which the
copy. IMO there can be no doubt on that issue.
Paul.
--
Email: pebj...@ubgznvy.pbz (apply ROT13)
Neuendorffer
> Direct Descendant of These American Patriots:
>
> Andrew Jackson McNeill (War of Northern Aggression)
> William M. Chapman (War of Northern Aggression)
> Addison Sharp (War of Northern Aggression)
Which side were they on?
Art N.
Elizabeth Weir
>
> >Here's a link to one of the articles about the Sanders portrait which
> >has a link to a really big image of the painting (313K), the best one
> >I've seen so far.
> >
> >http://www.geocities.com/tranquileye/shakespeare/
>
> Being something of a digital photo-restoration amateur, I've duplicated the
> above image and (with restraint) cleaned it up as it might have looked
> nearer its creation date, since now it is 'With Time's injurious hand
> crushed and o'erworn'.
>
> My version can be seen at:
>
> http://members.home.net/gillenc/sanders-portrait.jpg
THAT IS PHENOMENAL! I can even see the threads of the canvas.
We can now see that the subject was wearing fine clothing,
beautifully made and so perfectly rendered by the artist.
The artist also shows the subject with Droeshout's light
eye/dark eye, something we couldn't tell before you enhanced
it. It would take an experienced painter to pick up on the
fact that light comes in through the side of the cornea and makes
that eye lighter. That tells me that the engraver of the
Droeshout copied that effect.
I love that languid look about him. If it is Southampton
we can now understand why both men and women fell in love
with him.
MakBane
>
>> Direct Descendant of These American Patriots:
>>
>> Andrew Jackson McNeill (War of Northern Aggression)
>> William M. Chapman (War of Northern Aggression)
>> Addison Sharp (War of Northern Aggression)
>
The Confederacy, of course. Thanks for asking.
Toby Petzold
Elizabeth Weir
The losing side.
Have you noticed the DroEshout head is not attached to the body?
Draw a line from the right sleeve over the shoulder line,
under the chin to the left sleeve. The neck and head are
sitting on air.
Neuendorffer
>
> Have you noticed the DroEshout head is not attached to the body?
> Draw a line from the right sleeve over the shoulder line,
> under the chin to the left sleeve. The neck and head are
> sitting on air.
Edward de Vere died June 24, 1604
the Festival Day of St. John the Baptist
<<John's ministry and life ended when he admonished Herod and his wife,
Herodias, for their sinful behavior. John was imprisoned and was
eventually beheaded. Saint Jerome wrote that Herod kept the head for a
long time after, stabbing the tongue with his dagger in a demented
attempt to continuously inflict punishment upon John.>>
<<In addition to being the initial Patron Saint of Freemasons, the
Baptist was also considered to be the Patron Saint of the following:
Bird dealers, convulsions, cutters, epilepsy, furriers, hailstorms,
Knights Hospitaller, Knights of Malta, lambs, monastic life, printers,
spasms, and oars.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------
St. John the Baptist, Patron Saint
Written by: Phillip G. Elam,
Grand Lodge of Ancient, Free and Accepted Masons
<<By history, custom, tradition and ritualistic requirements, the Craft
holds in veneration the Festival Days of St. John the Baptist on June
24th, and St. John the Evangelist on December 27th. Any Blue Lodge that
forgets either of these important Festival Days forfeits a precious link
with the past and loses an opportunity for the renewal of allegiance to
everything in Freemasonry symbolized by these Patron Saints.
No satisfactory explanation has yet been advanced to explain why
operative Masons adopted these two particular Christian saints, when,
for example, St. Thomas, the patron of architecture and building, was
already in wide use.
It was a common custom in the Middle Ages for craftsmen to place
themselves under the protection of some saint of the church. All the
London trades appear to have ranged themselves under the banner of some
saint and if possible they chose one who bore fancied relation to their
trades Thus, the fishmongers adopted St. Peter; glove makers chose St.
Crispin; guards chose St. Matthew; tilers chose St. Barbara; tailors
often chose Eve; lawyers selected St. Mark; lead workers chose St.
Sebastian; stone cutters chose the Four Crowned Martyrs; doctors chose
St. Luke; astronomers chose St. Dominic; and so on.
Eleven or more medieval trade guilds chose John the Baptist as their
Patron Saint. Even after exhaustive research by some of the best Masonic
scholars, no one can say with any certainty why Freemasons adopted the
two Saints John, or why they continue to celebrate feast days when they
once held a far different significance. However, the appropriateness of
the two Johns is obvious in our system of Great Moral Teachings, if we
consider the spiritual suggestion of their lives.
St. John the Baptist was a stern and just man, intolerant of sham, of
pretense, of weakness. He was a man of strength and fire, uncompromising
with evil or expediency, and, yet, courageous, humble, sincere, and
magnanimous. A character at once heroic and of rugged nobility, the
Greatest of Teachers said of the Baptist: "Among them that are born of
woman, there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist."
What do we know about John the Baptist? John was a Levite. His father
Zechariah was a Temple priest of the line of Abijah, and his mother
Elizabeth was also descended from Aaron. The Carpenter from Nazareth and
John the Baptist were related. Their mothers, Mary and Elizabeth, were
cousins. John the Baptist was born 6 months before the Nazarene, and he
died about 6 months before Jesus. The angel Gabriel separately announced
the coming births of the Great Teacher Christ and John the Baptist.
Zechariah doubted the prophecy, and was struck dumb until John's birth.
John lived in the mountainous area of Judah, between Jerusalem and the
Dead Sea. John's clothes were made of camel's hair, and he had a leather
belt around his waist. His food was locusts and
wild honey.
John had a popular ministry. It is generally thought that his ministry
started when he was about the age of 27, spreading a message of
repentance to the people of Jerusalem. John's ministry became so popular
that many wondered if he was the Messiah prophesized in the ancient
Hebrew teachings. We are also told that John the Baptist baptized Jesus
after which he stepped away and told his disciples to follow Jesus. It
would seem logical that these two would combine their ministries. Oddly
enough, however, they apparently never met again.
John's ministry and life ended when he admonished Herod and his wife,
Herodias, for their sinful behavior. John was imprisoned and was
eventually beheaded. Saint Jerome wrote that Herod kept the head for a
long time after, stabbing the tongue with his dagger in a demented
attempt to continuously inflict punishment upon John.
After he was murdered, John's disciples came and buried his body, and
then went and told the Great Teacher all that had happened. The
Carpenter responded to the news of John's death by saying, "John was a
lamp that burned and gave Light, and you chose for a time to enjoy his
Light."
On June 24th, we observe the festival of summer sun and on December
27th, we observe the festival of the winter sun. The June festival
commemorates John the Baptist and the December festival honors John the
Evangelist.
These two festivals bear the names of Christian Saints, but ages ago,
before the Christian era they bore other names. Masonry adopted these
festivals and the Christian names, but has taken away Christian dogma,
and made their observance universal for all men of all beliefs. St.
John's Day, June 24, symbolically marks the summer solstice, when nature
attains the zenith of light and life and joy. St. John's day in winter,
December 27, symbolizes the turn of the sun's farthest journey - the
attainment of wisdom, the rewards of a well-spent life, and love toward
one's fellow man.
In addition to being the initial Patron Saint of Freemasons, the Baptist
was also considered to be the Patron Saint of the following: Bird
dealers, convulsions, cutters, epilepsy, furriers, hailstorms, Knights
Hospitaller, Knights of Malta, lambs, Maltese Knights, monastic life,
motorways, printers, spasms, and oars.
The first Grand Lodge organized in England in 1717, on the Festival Day
of the Baptist. The United Grand Lodge of England was created in 1813 on
the Festival Day of the Evangelist. The day of St. John the Baptist is
truly symbolic of a day of beginnings, while the day of the Evangelist
is symbolic of endings.
In the English catechism of the early eighteenth century, the following
three questions and answers were included as an explanation of why
Lodges were dedicated to the Holy Saints John:
Why to John the Baptist?
In him, we have a singular instance of purity, of zeal, simplicity of
manners, and an ardent wish to benefit mankind by his example. To him we
are indebted for the introduction of that grand tenet of our
institution, which it is our glory to support: Peace on earth, good will
toward men.
Did John the Baptist have any equal?
To carry into execution this grand tenet; and to transmit to future ages
so valuable a doctrine, an equal has been selected, John the Evangelist,
in whom we find talents and learning alike conspicuous. Hence, it is to
him we pay due allegiance as the patron of our art.
In what is he considered the equal of John the Baptist?
He is considered to be equal to the former in this. As the personal
influence of John the Baptist could not extend beyond the bounds of a
private circle or so effectually defuse the benefits of the plan he had
introduced, an assistant was necessary to complete the work he had
begun. In John the Evangelist, therefore, we discover the same zeal as
John the Baptist, and superior abilities displayed to perfect the
improvement of man; copying the example of his predecessor we view him
arranging and ably digesting, by his eminent talents, the great doctrine
which had been issued into the world; and transmitting by his writings,
for the benefit of posterity, the influence of that doctrine to which
the zeal of his predecessor had given birth. As parallels in Masonry, we
rank these two patrons and class them as joint promoters of our system;
to their memory in conjunction with Solomon, we are taught to pay due
homage and veneration.
Thus, we define the two great characters to whom we owe the
establishment of our tenets, and the improvement of our system; while,
in the ceremony of dedication, we commemorate the virtues and transmit
them to latter ages, we derive from their favor, patronage and
protection.
The Volume of Sacred Law tells us that when the multitudes asked of the
Baptist, "What shall we do", John responded, thusly: "He that hath two
coats, let him give to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let
him do in like manner." To the tax collectors, he enjoined then not to
exact more than the rate of taxes fixed by law. To the soldiers, who
served as the police of those times, he recommended not to do violence
to any man, nor falsely to denounce anyone.
Our ritual speaks of a Lodge of the Holy Saints John at Jerusalem. Many
Brethren take this to refer to a Lodge at Jerusalem when it actually
only refers to the Holy Saints John as being at Jerusalem. Hundreds of
years ago, Scottish Lodges were referred to as Saint Johns' Lodges.
Therefore, when a Brother referred to himself as
coming from a Lodge of the Holy Saints John at Jerusalem, he meant only
that he came from a Scottish Lodge.
When were the Holy Saints John selected as patrons of our Order? We do
not have exact dates, but our ancient manuscripts indicate that St. John
the Baptist was selected by Scottish, and later British, Lodges long
before the Evangelist who appears for the first time in any Masonic
documents in the 17th century.>>
---------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Neuendorffer
> >
> >> Direct Descendant of These American Patriots:
> >>
> >> Andrew Jackson McNeill (War of Northern Aggression)
> >> William M. Chapman (War of Northern Aggression)
> >> Addison Sharp (War of Northern Aggression)
> >
> Neuendorffer:> Which side were they on?
>
>
> The Confederacy, of course. Thanks for asking.
Did they win?
Art N.
Elizabeth Weir
The costumes can be dated. The costume in the portrait looks
Elizabethan. Very English. The Droeshout costume looks later,
Jacobean, more French.
Also subjects don't sit for engravings.
The artist has captured the wonderful rose and white skin of his
red-haired subject so I think it was definitely done from life.
Rita
> > me, but, as you say, the link to Shakespeare has yet to be proved.
>
> The link to the Folio portrait is obvious -- the weird collar,
> triangles on it, the buttons and horizontal lines on the tunic,
> the orientation of the sitter, the details of his features -- hair,
> moustache, shape of nose, ears, physically impossible
> upper nose/eyebrow line, etc.,etc.
>
> The only question is which was the original and which the
> copy. IMO there can be no doubt on that issue.
>
> Paul.
Paul. Paul, Paul, Paul Paul Paul - how many Elizabethan portraits
have you personally examined? About as many as I have i.e. none?
Still - lack of expertise never stopped us before, so let's go:
'the weird collar' - means nothing. The clothes in all Elizabethan
pictures look weird because Elizabethan clothes WERE weird. (You want
proof? Ruffs.)
'Triangles on it'- Triangles my Aunt Fanny, I bet those are DARTS to
fit the material into the circumference of the neck of the shirt! You
can't fit a basically oblong strip of fabric round a circular neckline
without creating darts. In a fine material like lawn, when you press
them flat they look whiter than the rest of the shirt collar because
the material is doubled. You see them in lots of Elizabethan
pictures. Dear me. Not only are you no Dr Roy Strong, Crowley, BUT
YOU CAN'T SEW EITHER!!! (Goal to me)
'Buttons and horizontal lines on the tunic' Ever seen a doublet
WITHOUT buttons? Name one. (Two up at half-time!)
'orientation of the sitter' - what? 3/4 face, gazing to the viewer's
left? So does the Marlowe portrait, the Grafton portrait, practically
every portrait you can name apart from the 50% where the sitter is
gazing to the viewer's right. What else do you expect? Sitter gazing
skywards, revealing stubbly chin? (The crowd are on the pitch, they
think it's all over..)
'details of his features' - oooho, this is your worst effort yet! ALL
Elizabethan portraits look like each other, because Elizabethan
artists were crap. You know that line by Donne about a single picture
by Hilliard made being worth a whole history blah de blah? Utter
phooey. An Elizabethan painter catch a likeness? They couldn't catch
a cold. Young John Donne looks nothing whatever like middle-aged John
Donne. Pictures of any unknown female in any costume however bizarre
are described as 'Possibly Mary Queen of Scots'. Sir John Hawkins
looks like Sir Francis Walsingham looks like Sir Walter Ralegh. I
blame those stupid beards and their tight constipated expressions. No
wonder their artists were obsessed with painting costume - it was only
by the clothes they could tell each other's pictures apart!!
(Runs round the pitch waving cup aloft, up to the Royal box, winner's
medal, down again and lap of honour.)
Okay, I laughed if you didn't.. but to be serious. If you look at
http://ps.theatre.tulane.edu/Period.Styles/Costumes/images/Elizabethan.Men/CN04.jpg
there's an image of the NPG portrait of Essex, after Gheeraerts. It
isn't a good one, but it too has 'triangles' caused by the darts in
the collar. Also, can I point out the style of decoration on Essex's
doublet looks a lot closer to the one in the Folio portrait than the
Sanders doublet does? Essex too has a band of decoration on either
side of his (also globular) buttons, which is repeated on his capped
shoulders: it too continues down the sleeves, along the top shoulder
seams and round the armholes, just as Shakespeare's does on the Folio
portrait. I don't suggest any connection at all between the portrait
of Essex and the one in the Folio. It just so happens both were of
men wearing a contemporary and similar style of doublet and collar -
like hundreds of others alive back then.
When you look back at photos of the 1970s, doesn't everyone look
eerily similar to you now? It's because they all have similar
hairstyles and roughly similar clothes. Imagine if those photos were
all amateurish paintings, or indifferent etchings based on the same.
Then imagine somebody four hundred years from now trying to
distinguish an image of Bjorn from ABBA from your neighbourhood
trendsetter. That's why the Sanders portrait looks a little like the
Folio portrait.
Yes it's a nice picture, but Shakespeare? We need more evidence.
Rita
Dave Furstenau
elizabe...@mail.com wrote:
> Have you noticed the DroEshout head is not attached to the body? Draw a
> line from the right sleeve over the shoulder line, under the chin to
> the left sleeve. The neck and head are sitting on air.
Since the neck line would be hidden behind collar, I guess I don't
understand why you consider this a significant observation. Moreover, no
one ever claimed it was a Polaroid, so even if you charge is true, the
significance still eludes me. Mone me si erro.
Granted, I *have* heard anti-strats make that point in the past, but they
were generally people who had little experience at holding their heads up
in public and were understandably suspicious when they encountered people
who did.
--Dave Furstenau
Elizabeth Weir
> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> >
> > Have you noticed the DroEshout head is not attached to the body?
> > Draw a line from the right sleeve over the shoulder line,
> > under the chin to the left sleeve. The neck and head are
> > sitting on air.
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Edward de Vere died June 24, 1604
> the Festival Day of St. John the Baptist
>
> <<John's ministry and life ended when he admonished Herod and his wife,
> Herodias, for their sinful behavior. John was imprisoned and was
> eventually beheaded. Saint Jerome wrote that Herod kept the head for a
> long time after, stabbing the tongue with his dagger in a demented
> attempt to continuously inflict punishment upon John.>>
Is that a yes?
Greg Reynolds
Elizabeth Weir wrote:
Thanks to that damned guillotine blade
MakBane
Art, are you suggesting that my Confederate ancestors are NOT American
Patriots? Have you begun to perceive that I am offended?
Toby Petzold
Neuendorffer
> > >
> > > Have you noticed the DroEshout head is not attached to the body?
> > > Draw a line from the right sleeve over the shoulder line,
> > > under the chin to the left sleeve. The neck and head are
> > > sitting on air.
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > Edward de Vere died June 24, 1604
> > the Festival Day of St. John the Baptist
> >
> > <<John's ministry and life ended when he admonished Herod and his wife,
> > Herodias, for their sinful behavior. John was imprisoned and was
> > eventually beheaded. Saint Jerome wrote that Herod kept the head for a
> > long time after, stabbing the tongue with his dagger in a demented
> > attempt to continuously inflict punishment upon John.>>
Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> Is that a yes?
That's a yes in addition to one of the two possible reasons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other possibility is that the Green (Verde) Knight is implicated.
http://www.uidaho.edu/student_orgs/arthurian_legend/knights/orkney/early.htm#green
Either case points to Edward de Vere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Neuendorffer
> >> >
> >> >> Direct Descendant of These American Patriots:
> >> >>
> >> >> Andrew Jackson McNeill (War of Northern Aggression)
> >> >> William M. Chapman (War of Northern Aggression)
> >> >> Addison Sharp (War of Northern Aggression)
> >> >
> >> Neuendorffer:> Which side were they on?
> >>
> >MakBane wrote:
> >>
> >> The Confederacy, of course. Thanks for asking.
> >
> > Did they win?
MakBane wrote:
> Art, are you suggesting that my Confederate ancestors are NOT American
> Patriots? Have you begun to perceive that I am offended?
You are welcome to have think of your Confederate ancestors as
American Patriots if you like just so long as you don't imply that my
one and only Union ancestor (who died in the conflict) was some sort of
"Northern Aggressor."
I don't know why you can't simply call it "The War between the
States".
Art N.
MakBane
Fair enough, Art. The right "side" won. And, now, we are all e pluribus unum.
Toby Petzold
Elizabeth Weir
> "Paul Crowley" <pebj...@ubgznvy.pbz (apply ROT13)> wrote in message news:<KEAQ6.3327$Fk7....@news.indigo.ie>...
> > Rita <David...@tesco.net> wrote in message
> >
> > > It certainly looks an authentic and attractive Elizabethan portrait to
> > > me, but, as you say, the link to Shakespeare has yet to be proved.
> >
> > The link to the Folio portrait is obvious -- the weird collar,
> > triangles on it, the buttons and horizontal lines on the tunic,
> > the orientation of the sitter, the details of his features -- hair,
> > moustache, shape of nose, ears, physically impossible
> > upper nose/eyebrow line, etc.,etc.
> >
> > The only question is which was the original and which the
> > copy. IMO there can be no doubt on that issue.
>
> >
> > Paul.
>
> Paul. Paul, Paul, Paul Paul Paul - how many Elizabethan portraits
> have you personally examined? About as many as I have i.e. none?
> Still - lack of expertise never stopped us before, so let's go:
>
> 'the weird collar' - means nothing. The clothes in all Elizabethan
> pictures look weird because Elizabethan clothes WERE weird. (You want
> proof? Ruffs.)
>
> 'Triangles on it'- Triangles my Aunt Fanny, I bet those are DARTS to
> fit the material into the circumference of the neck of the shirt!
I think those are stays. Probably whalebone. Victorian mens' collars
had stays. A little pocket is sewn in a double layer of
material--v-shaped in this case--the stay is slipped in and the
opening is bound with a whip stitch. My dictionary gives the archaic
definition of "stay" as to "stand firm" so the stay makes the collar
stand up firmly.
With a gauzey material like lawn it's not too difficult to fit a flat
collar piece into a round neck opening. A running stitch is sewn
along the inside edge of the collar, gathered slightly to pull the
warp threads closer and pressed flat. That gives it a curved shape.
The fitted sleeve works on the same principle.
> You
> can't fit a basically oblong strip of fabric round a circular neckline
> without creating darts. In a fine material like lawn, when you press
> them flat they look whiter than the rest of the shirt collar because
> the material is doubled. You see them in lots of Elizabethan
> pictures. Dear me. Not only are you no Dr Roy Strong, Crowley, BUT
> YOU CAN'T SEW EITHER!!! (Goal to me)
>
> 'Buttons and horizontal lines on the tunic' Ever seen a doublet
> WITHOUT buttons? Name one. (Two up at half-time!)
I've seen laced vests or jerkins. I don't think doublets were laced.
Maybe a jerkin is a doublet. Buttons were probably expensive. Of
course the button is cheaper than paying to have buttonholes made.
The Romans invented buttons but didn't use them. Maybe they just
liked ventilation or maybe they didn't like sitting around making
buttonholes.
> 'orientation of the sitter' - what? 3/4 face, gazing to the viewer's
> left? So does the Marlowe portrait, the Grafton portrait, practically
> every portrait you can name apart from the 50% where the sitter is
> gazing to the viewer's right. What else do you expect? Sitter gazing
> skywards, revealing stubbly chin? (The crowd are on the pitch, they
> think it's all over..)
>
> 'details of his features' - oooho, this is your worst effort yet! ALL
> Elizabethan portraits look like each other, because Elizabethan
> artists were crap.
England was sort of an medieval outpost of the Renaissance until the
end of the Elizabethan Age. Henry VII's portrait gallery is
hysterical because some portraits are crudely medieval and some are
done in a mature Flemish style. Holbein was almost photographic.
There are no realistic paintings of Elizabeth probably because her
face was disfigured by small pox and she would rather have Hillard
idealize her than be shown as she was. You can imagine that if
Elizabeth was using Hilliard, everybody would use Hilliard until after
she was dead.
This portrait of Lady Elizabeth Wroithesley shows that English
portrait painters quickly got over their inhibitions. It looks like
she's dressed for a Shakespearean role or maybe the Et in Arcadia Ego
fad had reached Britain by 1670 or whatever year.
Oh no. She was born the same year that Poussin did the painting. I'M
SURE IT'S JUST A COINCIDENCE. [I'm kidding Neuendorffer].
<http://www.boughtonhouse.org.uk/graphics/ewriothesley.jpg>
Good observation. There may be a connection.
> When you look back at photos of the 1970s, doesn't everyone look
> eerily similar to you now? It's because they all have similar
> hairstyles and roughly similar clothes. Imagine if those photos were
> all amateurish paintings, or indifferent etchings based on the same.
> Then imagine somebody four hundred years from now trying to
> distinguish an image of Bjorn from ABBA from your neighbourhood
> trendsetter. That's why the Sanders portrait looks a little like the
> Folio portrait.
Imagine how awful it would be back in the 1970s to have that brain
disorder where you can't differentiate faces. Everybody would have
the same clothes *and* the same head. LOL.
> Yes it's a nice picture, but Shakespeare? We need more evidence.
I think it's Wriothesley. It looks like his portraits when he was
young. Wriothesley is supposed to be the "invisible dedicatee" of the
First Folio so that would explain the Droeshout similarity.
Wriothesley was an actor and Sanders probably offered to paint him. I
doubt Sanders would go blind painting the minute detail of thE costume
for a mere fellow actor but he probably would go to that trouble for a
peer of the realm. Wriothesley may not have liked the painting--maybe
it made him took too masculine--Wriothesley played womens' roles.
That would explain how it came to stay in the Sanders family. I think
Shakespeare would have taken it home.
Peter Farey
>
<snip>
> (Goal to me)
<snip>
> (Two up at half-time!)
<snip>
> (The crowd are on the pitch, they
> think it's all over..)
> (Runs round the pitch waving cup aloft, up to the Royal box,
> winner's medal, down again and lap of honour.)
>
> Okay, I laughed if you didn't..
Well, I certainly did. I hooted. Nice to have a sporting
analogy that I understood for once! (Although I'm still
wondering how you got hold of that cup before going to collect
it!). I also agreed wholeheartedly with what you had to say
about the portrait, by the way.
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Rita
> > fit the material into the circumference of the neck of the shirt!
>
> I think those are stays. Probably whalebone. Victorian mens' collars
> had stays. A little pocket is sewn in a double layer of
> material--v-shaped in this case--the stay is slipped in and the
> opening is bound with a whip stitch. My dictionary gives the archaic
> definition of "stay" as to "stand firm" so the stay makes the collar
> stand up firmly.
>
> With a gauzey material like lawn it's not too difficult to fit a flat
> collar piece into a round neck opening. A running stitch is sewn
> along the inside edge of the collar, gathered slightly to pull the
> warp threads closer and pressed flat. That gives it a curved shape.
> The fitted sleeve works on the same principle.
>
But did they do it back then? There's a good webpage devoted to
making a collar ( band?) at
http://www.vertetsable.com/cavcollars.htm
The style shown is a bit late, but the principle stayed the same. I
still say they're darts (okay it seems 'clocks' is the period term),
though stays might explain the bizarre way the collar sticks out
horizontally in the Folio portrait. (Or is that just inept Elizabethan
artistry again? Or maybe starch?)
Well, granted the ones in the Sanders portrait seem to have a line of
stitching round the edge, but that could be decorative...Anyway, stays
or clocks, the point is Eliz fallingbands nearly all had 'triangles',
so their presence in both Folio and Sanders portraits doesn't signify
the two are connected.
Rita
Paul Crowley
> "Paul Crowley" <pebj...@ubgznvy.pbz (apply ROT13)> wrote in message news:<KEAQ6.3327$Fk7....@news.indigo.ie>...
> > Rita <David...@tesco.net> wrote in message
> >
> > > It certainly looks an authentic and attractive Elizabethan portrait to
> > > me, but, as you say, the link to Shakespeare has yet to be proved.
> >
> > The link to the Folio portrait is obvious -- the weird collar,
> > triangles on it, the buttons and horizontal lines on the tunic,
> > the orientation of the sitter, the details of his features -- hair,
> > moustache, shape of nose, ears, physically impossible
> > upper nose/eyebrow line, etc.,etc.
> >
> > The only question is which was the original and which the
> > copy. IMO there can be no doubt on that issue.
>
> >
> > Paul.
>
> Paul. Paul, Paul, Paul Paul Paul - how many Elizabethan portraits
> have you personally examined? About as many as I have i.e. none?
Quite a lot, but I've not focussed much on clothes.
> 'the weird collar' - means nothing. The clothes in all Elizabethan
> pictures look weird because Elizabethan clothes WERE weird. (You want
> proof? Ruffs.)
>
> 'Triangles on it'- Triangles my Aunt Fanny, I bet those are DARTS to
> fit the material into the circumference of the neck of the shirt! You
> can't fit a basically oblong strip of fabric round a circular neckline
> without creating darts. In a fine material like lawn, when you press
> them flat they look whiter than the rest of the shirt collar because
> the material is doubled. You see them in lots of Elizabethan
> pictures. Dear me. Not only are you no Dr Roy Strong, Crowley, BUT
> YOU CAN'T SEW EITHER!!! (Goal to me)
I bet I can sew better than you. However, sewing bees apart,
thanks for pointing out the function of the 'triangles'. I had
missed it. But take a look at the collar of the Sanders portrait.
How could the 'triangles' in that have been for the purpose
of stiffening? First the collar is clearly not meant for stiffening.
Nor is the sitter wearing it stiffened. (Which considering that
it's an expensive portrait, would seem to like wearing 'morning
dress' with an open collar.) Secondly, those triangles wouldn't
have done the job anyway. There seem to be none at the back.
And then look at the two channels for stiffeners at the front --
they are in quite the wrong place.
We need an expert on Elizabethan dress.
> 'Buttons and horizontal lines on the tunic' Ever seen a doublet
> WITHOUT buttons? Name one. (Two up at half-time!)
>
> 'orientation of the sitter' - what? 3/4 face, gazing to the viewer's
> left? So does the Marlowe portrait, the Grafton portrait, practically
> every portrait you can name apart from the 50% where the sitter is
> gazing to the viewer's right. What else do you expect? Sitter gazing
> skywards, revealing stubbly chin? (The crowd are on the pitch, they
> think it's all over..)
Actually, it's remarkably hard to find a portait which presents
the same orientation as the Folio portrait -- I've tried, so don't
come the heavy. The Sanders face can be overlaid onto the
Folio face reasonably well. You can't do that with most
portraits -- such as the one of Essex you mentioned. Here's
an experiment. Look up, and while keeping your eyes fixed on
something on the far side of the room at eye-level, count the
number of directions in which you can point your nose, moving
it up and down and side to side. You'll find quite a lot -- and
that's only some of the options the portrait painter has --
because you don't have to look at him and he can show you
in profile as well. Although, I will grant you that Elizabethan
painters went for the 3/4 face more than later generations.
> 'details of his features' - oooho, this is your worst effort yet! ALL
> Elizabethan portraits look like each other, because Elizabethan
> artists were crap. You know that line by Donne about a single picture
> by Hilliard made being worth a whole history blah de blah? Utter
> phooey. An Elizabethan painter catch a likeness? They couldn't catch
> a cold. Young John Donne looks nothing whatever like middle-aged John
> Donne.
They were a lot better than their successors -- presumably
the Renaissance and all that.
> Pictures of any unknown female in any costume however bizarre
> are described as 'Possibly Mary Queen of Scots'.
They rarely bothered to make notes about female sitters
> Sir John Hawkins
> looks like Sir Francis Walsingham looks like Sir Walter Ralegh.
Only to those who don't know them. It's like the fact that
all chinese look the same -- as do all blacks (oops -- am
I getting un-PC?)
> blame those stupid beards and their tight constipated expressions. No
> wonder their artists were obsessed with painting costume - it was only
> by the clothes they could tell each other's pictures apart!!
> (Runs round the pitch waving cup aloft, up to the Royal box, winner's
> medal, down again and lap of honour.)
>
> Okay, I laughed if you didn't.. but to be serious. If you look at
> http://ps.theatre.tulane.edu/Period.Styles/Costumes/images/Elizabethan.Men/CN04.jpg
> there's an image of the NPG portrait of Essex, after Gheeraerts. It
> isn't a good one, but it too has 'triangles' caused by the darts in
> the collar. Also, can I point out the style of decoration on Essex's
> doublet looks a lot closer to the one in the Folio portrait than the
> Sanders doublet does? Essex too has a band of decoration on either
> side of his (also globular) buttons, which is repeated on his capped
> shoulders: it too continues down the sleeves, along the top shoulder
> seams and round the armholes, just as Shakespeare's does on the Folio
> portrait. I don't suggest any connection at all between the portrait
> of Essex and the one in the Folio. It just so happens both were of
> men wearing a contemporary and similar style of doublet and collar -
> like hundreds of others alive back then.
You're right about the general style of doublet and the buttons.
I will have grave doubts about that collar, though, until I see the
statement of an expert.
> When you look back at photos of the 1970s, doesn't everyone look
> eerily similar to you now? It's because they all have similar
> hairstyles and roughly similar clothes. Imagine if those photos were
> all amateurish paintings, or indifferent etchings based on the same.
> Then imagine somebody four hundred years from now trying to
> distinguish an image of Bjorn from ABBA from your neighbourhood
> trendsetter. That's why the Sanders portrait looks a little like the
> Folio portrait.
I'm almost tempted to put up a animated overlay so that you
can see the similarity of the facial features. The Sanders nose
is almost identical to the Folio's. That _alone_ is highly unlikely
to occur by chance. You can probably inspect a couple of
hundred noses on your way home today -- you won't find one
like it. It's not a specially remarkable nose; it's just that noses
are remarkably variable. I don't have a Sanders/Folio nose,
nor do you, nor will anyone you know.
Then the 'philtrum' (the slot under the nose) is emphasised
in both portraits -- very unusually, and the moustache is
absolutely identical. Another distinctive area is the top of
the nose where it runs into the eyebrows. Both portraits
show features unknown in the human male face -- and
unknown elsewhere in Elizabethan portraits -- OK, I haven't
examined every one of them. But it is a freakish feature,
and I've not seen anything like it in any that I have seen.
> Yes it's a nice picture, but Shakespeare? We need more evidence.
It's just another attempt to 'humanise' the Folio face.
Neuendorffer
> >
> > Have you noticed the DroEshout head is not attached to the body?
> > Draw a line from the right sleeve over the shoulder line,
> > under the chin to the left sleeve. The neck and head are
> > sitting on air.
Greg Reynolds wrote:
>
> Thanks to that damned guillotine blade
---------------------------------------------
> (ph...@errors.comedy) wrote:
>
> > Paul Revere made his famous ride from Cambridge through
> > “every Middlesex village and farm” on April 18, 1775.
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Paul Revere, b. Boston, Jan. 1, 1735, d. May 10, 1818,
> > http://webpages.homestead.com/revwar/files/REVERE.HTM
> >
> > <<His father, Apollos Rivoire (or De Rivoire),
"David L. Webb" wrote:
> But Art -- _Encyclopedia Britannica_ spells the name "de Revoire,"
> and that name is a perfect anagram of
>
> "De Vere, Roi"!
>
> Clearly, this is an intimation that Oxford was the rightful claimant to
> the throne! It thereby corroborates the various Oxfordian "Tudor Rose"
> conspiracy theories. Is Mr. Streitz correct after all, Art? Inquiring
> minds want to know.
You really need to take the full name:
Apollos Rivoire
SAILOR PRO OLIVE
POOR L.LAVOISIER
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.english.upenn.edu/~jlynch/Frank/People/lavois.html
<<Antoine L. Lavoisier was born in Paris, in August 26th 1743. French
chemist who, through a conscious revolution, became the father of modern
chemistry. As a student, he stated "I am young and avid for GLORY." He
was educated in a radical tradition, a friend of Condillac and read
Maquois's dictionary. He won a prize on lighting the streets of Paris,
and designed a new method for preparing saltpeter. He also married a
young, beautiful 13-year-old girl named Marie-Anne, who translated from
English for him and illustrated his books.
Beginning in 1775 he served on the Royal Gunpowerder Administration,
where his work led to improvements in the production of gunpowder and
the use of agricultural chemistry.
Although he exaggerated its importance, Lavoisier was the first to
understand the significance of Priestley's work on oxygen, and is
considered by some to have discovered the element. He disproved
phlogiston theory by demonstrating that oxygen is required for
combustion, rusting, and respiration. He combined his chemical abilities
with an interest in zoology to produce pioneering work on anatomy and
physiology.
Lavoisier is best known, though, not for major experiments or
discoveries, but for his synthesis of chemical knowledge in his Traité
elémentaire de chimie (1789), considered by many the first textbook on
modern chemistry. Here for the first time the modern notion of elements
is laid out systematically; the three or four elements of classical
chemistry gave way to the modern system, and Lavoisier worked out
reactions in chemical equations that respect the conservation of mass.
Politically, Lavoisier was a moderate constitutionalist, and Marat and
other radicals held him in contempt. He became involved in the Ferme
Generale, a private tax-collection firm, which became a target during
the Terror. He died on the guillotine May 8th 1794.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > [Apollos Rivoire] was a Huguenot who had gone to Boston
> > while still a boy as a refugee from religious persecution
> > in France. Apprenticed to the silversmith
>
> But Art -- "silversmith" is an anagram of "Ver shit -- slim."
You really need to take the full title:
Apprentice silversmith
CERVANTES' IMPISH TRIPLE
TEMPLAR CRISPIN THIEVES
An obvious reference to: Revere, Dawes & Prescott
or Quixote, Panza & Dulcinea
or Frizer, Poley & Skeres
> > John Coney, Apollos had married Deborah Hitchbourn (Hitchborn),
>
> But Art -- "Debora Hitchborn" is a perfect anagram of
>
> "Hid Brother Bacon"!
>
> A Masonic anagram, no doubt, with an INPNC score of 12/15.
I sort of like: "Brother Bacon Hid"!
or BROTHER BACH: ODIN
or HEBRAIC BOND: THOR
> > and he gradually Anglicized his
> > name as Paul Revere. As an independent silversmith, the elder Revere had
> > become a man of substance by the time his son Paul was born, in Boston,
> > Mass., on Jan. 1, 1735.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Rita
> > Yes it's a nice picture, but Shakespeare? We need more evidence.
>
> It's just another attempt to 'humanise' the Folio face.
>
>
> Paul.
Yes Paul,that's it. The Folio portrait is so unsatisfactory we're
always going to hope another, better image will turn up. Plus the
story that goes with it is so romantic you have to hope it may be
true.
Leaving aside discussion of the costume and features, my real
reservation is that the painting's incomplete. That's only to be
expected after such a long time I know, but the missing bits could
have held crucial information. It bothers me that the part just above
the date has gone, because from other Elizabethan portraits I've seen,
that's where we might have expected to find a reference to the
sitter's age. If the wood shows any signs of having been deliberately
broken off or tampered with in any way in that area, I would feel
quite suspicious - not about the current owner of course, who's
transparently honest, but about its former history.
But I do think it's a genuine Elizabethan portrait, and an unusually
attractive one. If the owner can come up with any provenance, like a
mention in a will, even only as far back as the 18th century, IMHO
that would move its case forward a lot.
Meantime I'm quite happy to use it as JDWilson suggested we use the
Grafton portrait; as a useful reminder that Shakespeare wasn't always
the dreadful domehead we've grown used to seeing.
Rita
Elizabeth Weir
The collar may be a 'pickadill' which was the most popular collar in
the 17th c. after the ruff. Pickadilly is named after Pickadill, the
mansion owned by a tailor who grew wealthy selling the collars.
The description was of a large flat collar with stiffening. I noticed
the Puritans adopted a smiliar collar, but without stiffening so it
lay flat on their black clothing.
> (Which considering that
> it's an expensive portrait, would seem to like wearing 'morning
> dress' with an open collar.) Secondly, those triangles wouldn't
> have done the job anyway. There seem to be none at the back.
> And then look at the two channels for stiffeners at the front --
> they are in quite the wrong place.
>
> We need an expert on Elizabethan dress.
> > 'Buttons and horizontal lines on the tunic' Ever seen a doublet
> > WITHOUT buttons? Name one. (Two up at half-time!)
The skirt of the "pot belly doublet" was held out by whalebone stays
and padded with horse hair, wool and even torn-up rags. Southampton
wears a pot belly doublet--cut away so the codpiece shows--in one of
his full length portraits. Very foppish.
Rita
<snip>
The skirt of the "pot belly doublet" was held out by whalebone stays
and padded with horse hair, wool and even torn-up rags. Southampton
wears a pot belly doublet--cut away so the codpiece shows--in one of
his full length portraits. Very foppish.
Proves my point about the weirdness of Elizabethan clothes though.
And the weirdest thing is, they KNEW how weird they were. I have
proof:
'Two filthy fashions.
Of all fond fashions, that were worne by Men,
These two (I hope) will ne'r be worne againe:
Great Codpist Doublets, and great Codpist britch,
At seuerall times worne both by meane and rich:
These two had beene, had they beene worne together,
Like two Fooles, pointing, mocking each the other.'
Which contemproary poet made these lines on the ugliness of
Elizabethan fashion?
A holiday in Newfoundland for the winner of this competition...
Rita
JHB
Elizabeth Weir <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:efbc3534.01053...@posting.google.com...
> The collar may be a 'pickadill' which was the most popular collar in
> the 17th c. after the ruff. Pickadilly is named after Pickadill, the
> mansion owned by a tailor who grew wealthy selling the collars.
>
> The description was of a large flat collar with stiffening. I noticed
> the Puritans adopted a smiliar collar, but without stiffening so it
> lay flat on their black clothing.
>
> The skirt of the "pot belly doublet" was held out by whalebone stays
> and padded with horse hair, wool and even torn-up rags. Southampton
> wears a pot belly doublet--cut away so the codpiece shows--in one of
> his full length portraits. Very foppish.
I didn't want to get involved in this thread, but I have to correct this
reference to 'pickadills'. I have made and worn a great many Elizabethan
costumes (as authentically as we can get to it in modern circumstances) in
my time as a Renaissance/Baroque dancer. 'Pickadils' (various spellings as
you'd expect from this era!) are not collars or even parts of collars; they
are the small, stiff, rounded or shield-shaped tabs along the edge of a
doublet collar or wrist-opening that the ruff, or other kind of 'band' (as
all collars and cuffs were called), and sometimes the 'rabatto' (again
various spellings) or 'under-propper', a wired structure used to hold out
the ruffs and bands when they became too big to support themselves with
their own stiffness, was pinned to. The weight of the band presses down onto
the pickadils foring them to spread and help support the plate effect of the
ruff or band.
There is no doubt in my mind that the 'triangles' referred to in the new
portrait are darts; triangular shaped tucks stitched down on the inner side
of the folded edge with a tiny running stitch (I am particularly glad to see
this detail in this case as I have never seen it so well depicted before and
vindicates the guesswork some of us reconstructors have had to make with
this particular detail) making a simple rectangular piece of linen fit to
the neck. The collar pieces HAVE to be made from rectangular pieces because
the cross grain of the fabric in a shaped piece will stretch and buckle in
the starching process (a 'falling' ruff or band is exactly the same garment
as the 'standing' variety, only without any or as much starch. The sewers
amongst you will appreciate that, while perfectly possible, easing or
gathering fine linen or cambric alone gives too much of a rounded bounce to
the band at this juncture to give the required flatness of a band, falling
or otherwise.
The band from the Droeshout engraving is a 'golilla', as the name implies a
Spanish mode; it is made in the same way as the unstiffened band in the new
portrait, but heavily starched and supported, and was a later fashion than
of the date that the new portrait purports to be. Sometimes ruffs would be
worn over a falling band, and similar sets of cuffs and ruffles were worn at
the wrists.
Starching at this time had become a HIGHLY skilled process; when one knows
how it has to be carried out one realises how the darts could not have been
channels for stays.
The starches used in the Elizabethan/Jacobean periods could have been from
various vegetable sources, the most common being wheat starch (corn starch
from the New World is the nearest modern equivalent), rice starch was known
and a substantial local (English) industry was maintained in the manufacture
of starch from the root of the Arum Maculatum, Cucopintel, Cuckoo Pint,
Lord's-&-Ladies, or Bulls' Pizzles (which Gertrude refers to as 'long
purples'). Starch could be scented, orris (the root of a variety of iris)
was a favourite and coloured, often with saffron (it only takes a grain or
two, genuine saffron colouring is very intense).
The starch is mixed with cold water, and the DRY (this is very important as
the starch grains permeate the dry fibres more readily; hot water starching
is a different process applied to wet articles, shirts, handkerchiefs etc)
garment is dipped into it. It is then laid on a flat surface and a very hot
iron is applied; the heat of the iron cooks and swells the microscopic
starch particles which go transparent, coalesce and combine with the threads
of the garment to render it as stiff as cardbord. In the process the two
layers of fabric in the darts are glued together making it impossible to
insert any kind of bone or reed (the usual materials for stays) without
weakening the stiffening quality of the starching method. Of course the
double layer glued together acts as a stay in its own right to an extent.
Ruffs are starched in exactly the same way, except that the gathered fabric
has to be drawn over hot irons and heated 'poking sticks': a very intricate
undertaking. The characteristic fluted figures-of-eight in ruffs are pinned
into place after stiffening. All of these garments were kept in place with
pins rather than stitching, leading to frequent accidents and the need for
running adjustments; the Duchess of Malfi's reference to her collapsing ruff
is just one example.
The costume (and possibly make-up!) details in the new portrait strike my
eye as thoroughly authentic as far as can be made out on a computer screen.
There are possibly some miniscule resemblances to the Folio engraving but
such points of similarity abound in the portraits and fashions of the time.
The overall costume and hair-style in the new portrait is convincingly of a
much earlier date than the Droeshout, and is fairly rich (perhaps not in the
Leicester/Essex/Rahleigh league, aristocrats who lavished FORTUNES on their
clothes), with plentiful yards of metal galloon and practicable buttoning.
JHB
Rita
>
> I didn't want to get involved in this thread, but -
Should've unlurked sooner, JHB, this is brilliant stuff. (I've
guessed your secret identity, by the way. You are Janet Arnold - but
don't worry! Your secret is safe with me.)
>
> There is no doubt in my mind that the 'triangles' referred to in the new
> portrait are darts <snip>
Independent ref upholds my goal, Paul. (silent gloat, silent gloat)
> The band from the Droeshout engraving is a 'golilla', as the name implies a
> Spanish mode; it is made in the same way as the unstiffened band in the new
> portrait, but heavily starched and supported, and was a later fashion than
> of the date that the new portrait purports to be.
Now hang on there, JHB! you can't just leave it like that and re-lurk
back to a quiet life. If the fashions shown in the Droeshout are
later, then tell us how much later. Do you think the Droeshout is
based on a later portrait, but possibly one done from life? Or if the
fashions suggest a date closer to publication, i.e. sometime between
1616-1623, do you think the Droeshout is some kind of posthumous
mock-up, where the engraver has based the face on an existing earlier
portrait but supplied a fashionable body from his own imagination? I
think we should be told.
> Starching at this time had become a HIGHLY skilled process
<snip scarily techno stuff about highpowered starch>
> All of these garments were kept in place with
> pins rather than stitching, leading to frequent accidents and the need for
> running adjustments; the Duchess of Malfi's reference to her collapsing ruff
> is just one example.
Not only weird clothes, then, but life-threateningly unsafe. Cough
and you impale yourself.
> The costume (and possibly make-up!) details in the new portrait strike my
> eye as thoroughly authentic as far as can be made out on a computer screen.
MAKE-UP!!! I've read references to make-up for men but thought it was
a satirical exaggeration. Make-up. My god, my notion of the
Elizabethans shifts again.
> There are possibly some miniscule resemblances to the Folio engraving but
> such points of similarity abound in the portraits and fashions of the time.
> The overall costume and hair-style in the new portrait is convincingly of a
> much earlier date than the Droeshout
Yes - why is the man's front hair apparetnly going upward in a kind of
steeply vertical quiff?
> and is fairly rich (perhaps not in the
> Leicester/Essex/Rahleigh league, aristocrats who lavished FORTUNES on their
> clothes), with plentiful yards of metal galloon and practicable buttoning.
>
> JHB
Quite. (Hey everybody, what's metal galloon?)
Rita
Elizabeth Weir
> news:efbc3534.01053...@posting.google.com...
>
> > The collar may be a 'pickadill' which was the most popular collar in
> > the 17th c. after the ruff. Pickadilly is named after Pickadill, the
> > mansion owned by a tailor who grew wealthy selling the collars.
> >
> > The description was of a large flat collar with stiffening. I noticed
> > the Puritans adopted a smiliar collar, but without stiffening so it
> > lay flat on their black clothing.
> >
> > The skirt of the "pot belly doublet" was held out by whalebone stays
> > and padded with horse hair, wool and even torn-up rags. Southampton
> > wears a pot belly doublet--cut away so the codpiece shows--in one of
> > his full length portraits. Very foppish.
>
> I didn't want to get involved in this thread, but I have to correct this
> reference to 'pickadills'.
I said 'may be.' There was no photo so I couldn't be sure. The rest
of the information was from British tourist board sites. I thought
it was interesting that a tailor could make a fortune off a fad in the
17th century.
> I have made and worn a great many Elizabethan
> costumes (as authentically as we can get to it in modern circumstances) in
> my time as a Renaissance/Baroque dancer. 'Pickadils' (various spellings as
> you'd expect from this era!)
I had better luck with your spelling. Leicester with pickadils.
<http://www.furman.edu/~kgossman/history/elizab/1550m3.jpg>
> are the small, stiff, rounded or shield-shaped tabs along the edge of a
> doublet collar or wrist-opening that the ruff, or other kind of 'band' (as
> all collars and cuffs were called), and sometimes the 'rabatto' (again
> various spellings) or 'under-propper', a wired structure used to hold out
> the ruffs and bands when they became too big to support themselves with
> their own stiffness, was pinned to. The weight of the band presses down onto
> the pickadils foring them to spread and help support the plate effect of the
> ruff or band.
>
> There is no doubt in my mind that the 'triangles' referred to in the new
> portrait are darts;
They can't be darts because the fabric of the triangles is a lighter
color than the darker collar material. I think the triangles are
probably gussets. Gussets are small triangular pieces of material
inserted into a garment to improve the fit.
> triangular shaped tucks stitched down on the inner side
> of the folded edge with a tiny running stitch (I am particularly glad to see
> this detail in this case as I have never seen it so well depicted before and
> vindicates the guesswork some of us reconstructors have had to make with
> this particular detail) making a simple rectangular piece of linen fit to
> the neck.
The Elizabethans apparently found a solution to the 'square peg in the
round hole' problem of rolled collar construction. The gussets are
about a third narrower at the base than the triangles that were cut
out of the darker collar material. This technique shortens [curves] a
section of the rectangular collar so it can be fitted into the
circular neck opening.
> The collar pieces HAVE to be made from rectangular pieces because
> the cross grain of the fabric in a shaped piece will stretch and buckle in
> the starching process (a 'falling' ruff or band is exactly the same garment
> as the 'standing' variety, only without any or as much starch. The sewers
> amongst you will appreciate that, while perfectly possible, easing or
> gathering fine linen or cambric alone gives too much of a rounded bounce to
> the band at this juncture to give the required flatness of a band, falling
> or otherwise.
> The band from the Droeshout engraving is a 'golilla', as the name implies a
> Spanish mode; it is made in the same way as the unstiffened band in the new
> portrait, but heavily starched and supported, and was a later fashion than
> of the date that the new portrait purports to be. Sometimes ruffs would be
> worn over a falling band, and similar sets of cuffs and ruffles were worn at
> the wrists.
>
> Starching at this time had become a HIGHLY skilled process; when one knows
> how it has to be carried out one realises how the darts could not have been
> channels for stays.
Gussets are still used to hold stays to keep the collar points
straight in mens' shirt collars. I'm not ruling out stays but the way
the gussets curve with the roll of the collar looks more like starch
than stays.
> The starches used in the Elizabethan/Jacobean periods could have been from
> various vegetable sources, the most common being wheat starch (corn starch
> from the New World is the nearest modern equivalent), rice starch was known
> and a substantial local (English) industry was maintained in the manufacture
> of starch from the root of the Arum Maculatum, Cucopintel, Cuckoo Pint,
> Lord's-&-Ladies, or Bulls' Pizzles (which Gertrude refers to as 'long
> purples'). Starch could be scented, orris (the root of a variety of iris)
> was a favourite and coloured, often with saffron (it only takes a grain or
> two, genuine saffron colouring is very intense).
This guy fell into the vat:
<http://www.furman.edu/~kgossman/history/elizab/1564.jpg>
Great post. I learned a lot.
> JHB
JHB
snip
> They can't be darts because the fabric of the triangles is a lighter
> color than the darker collar material.
If you fold sheer fabric over itself the effect is that the layers of
doubled (or in this case tripled) fabric look more dense than the single
layer; with white and light colours this has the effect of appearing
lighter. Try it with a pale chiffon or organza scarf ...
>I think the triangles are
> probably gussets. Gussets are small triangular pieces of material
> inserted into a garment to improve the fit.
> The Elizabethans apparently found a solution to the 'square peg in the
> round hole' problem of rolled collar construction. The gussets are
> about a third narrower at the base than the triangles that were cut
> out of the darker collar material. This technique shortens [curves] a
> section of the rectangular collar so it can be fitted into the
> circular neck opening.
>
I'm afraid this has to be nonsense as anyone who has ever made any kind of
collar will agree. The inner edge of a collar HAS to be smaller than the
outer edge to fit the neck allowing the the wider outer edge to spread over
the shoulders (even small modern shirt collars are cut as a curve with the
inner curve being the neck edge). The effect of gussets is to WIDEN an edge,
to insert gussets into the edge which needs to be the lesser will defeat the
whole object of the garment, and make extra, and ultimately redundant, work
in the process. There are quite a few bands still in existence in museum
collections, I know of none that are not made from rectangles darted to fit.
> Gussets are still used to hold stays to keep the collar points
> straight in mens' shirt collars. I'm not ruling out stays but the way
> the gussets curve with the roll of the collar looks more like starch
> than stays.
I'm quibbling here, but I have never seen a modern shirt with gussets to
hold stays. The only device I have come across is a superimposed channel or
a concealed channel made on the underside leaf of the collar.
JHB
Elizabeth Weir
> Elizabeth Weir <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:efbc3534.01060...@posting.google.com...
> snip
> > They can't be darts because the fabric of the triangles is a lighter
> > color than the darker collar material.
>
> If you fold sheer fabric over itself the effect is that the layers of
> doubled (or in this case tripled) fabric look more dense than the single
> layer; with white and light colours this has the effect of appearing
> lighter. Try it with a pale chiffon or organza scarf ...
You're right. I pulled up the Droeshout collar and can see it there.
> >I think the triangles are
> > probably gussets. Gussets are small triangular pieces of material
> > inserted into a garment to improve the fit.
> > The Elizabethans apparently found a solution to the 'square peg in the
> > round hole' problem of rolled collar construction. The gussets are
> > about a third narrower at the base than the triangles that were cut
> > out of the darker collar material. This technique shortens [curves] a
> > section of the rectangular collar so it can be fitted into the
> > circular neck opening.
> I'm afraid this has to be nonsense as anyone who has ever made any kind of
> collar will agree.
I understand collar construction.
And my theory isn't nonsense. Elizabethans had cut work and
appliques on their collars. There's a painting by Thomas Betters
that shows a cut work collar dated about 1570.
I also know that when a dart is seamed, after the dart fold is pressed
down and top stitched, the result is a right triangle, that is, an
'assymetrical' triangle.
Droeshout's triangles are definitely darts because they are
shaped like right triangles.
Sander's isosceles triangles look very different from the Droeshout
darts.
They are perfectly symmetrical. Since they can't be darts I think
they are some kind of cut work.
> The inner edge of a collar HAS to be smaller than the
> outer edge to fit the neck allowing the the wider outer edge to spread over
> the shoulders (even small modern shirt collars are cut as a curve with the
> inner curve being the neck edge).
The small modern shirt collar is not "cut as a curve." It's
essentially a rectangle attached to a two-ply band. The collar and
band are assembled flat, then the band is sewn to the shirt in two
steps. The collar curves only when the band is pulled into a circle
as the collar button is fastened.
The Sander's collar is more complicated than the modern shirt collar
because the back is constructed like a rolled collar while the front
is constructed like a flat collar. This combination
results in a collar that is high at the nape to frame the face and
drops to flat lapels to show off the neck. A very beautiful collar.
Neither the rolled collar nor flat collar requires a band and the
Sander's collar does not have a band. What looks like a .5 inch or so
band inside the neck opening is seam binding. [By band I mean the
American definition which is a rectangular piece between the garment
and the collar that allows the collar to turn].
The Droeshout engraving shows a collar that is almost flat and doesn't
have the high rolled fold that makes the Sander's collar so graceful.
The Droeshout collar sits on such a high band--2.5 to 4.0 inches--that
Shakespeare's chin is literally resting on the collar.
Shakespeare's head looks like it's being served on a platter.
The Droeshout collar was not cut as a rectangle and its construction
is almost a reversal of the Sander's collar. It appears to have been
cut in three pieces; two side pieces and a small connecting tab at the
throat. It's essentially a pieced flat collar perched on a stiff
band. The narrow darts put some roll into the sides but it's not a
rolled collar. It may be attached with pickadils as you described.
It's a neurotic looking thing. There is no clue in the engraving about
how the collar was fastened. The collar may have been 'fastened
backward' like priests' collars. An Elizabethan costumer in an online
forum mentioned that some collars had two holes in the back for
fastening.
> The effect of gussets is to WIDEN an edge,
> to insert gussets into the edge which needs to be the lesser will defeat the
> whole object of the garment, and make extra, and ultimately redundant, work
> in the process.
My dictionary doesn't say gussets must widen an edge.
If the cut out is 1.0 inch wide and the gusset that replaces it is .5
inch wide then three gussets will reduce the length of of the inside
edge of the rectangle by minus 1.5 inches allowing it to curve to fit
the neck opening. Maybe I should say 'inset' or 'insert.' Gusset,
gore, godet, dart, notch. What else is triangular in sewing?
> There are quite a few bands still in existence in museum
> collections, I know of none that are not made from rectangles darted to fit.
I think the clothing in the Sander's portrait is very costly. If I
were manufacturing collars by hand in the 17th century I would rather
make darts in sheer fabric because darts are fast and eliminate the
problem of controlling raveled edges but I think that the Sander's
collar shows cutwork of some kind. The triangles are appliqued on
both sides and that would not be necessary with the right-angle darts
in the Droeshout engraving. The Droeshout darts could be
blind stitched along one side. That's what they look like since
Droeshout has indicated no top stitching.
If the sitter is Wriothesley [and it sure looks like him] then the
collar would not have to be detachable. Southampton was so rich he
could toss a collar like that. Or perhaps he had a seamstress who
could take off the seam binding, wash and starch the collar, and sew
it back on the shirt. I know the Elizabethans did something similar
with sleeves.
> > Gussets are still used to hold stays to keep the collar points
> > straight in mens' shirt collars. I'm not ruling out stays but the way
> > the gussets curve with the roll of the collar looks more like starch
> > than stays.
>
> I'm quibbling here, but I have never seen a modern shirt with gussets to
> hold stays. The only device I have come across is a superimposed channel or
> a concealed channel made on the underside leaf of the collar.
The channel is a gusset technically speaking. Victorian mens' collars
had gussets
for stays to keep the collar points from wilting and the collars were
starched like iron.
Stays and starch and stiff necks.
John W. Kennedy
> The small modern shirt collar is not "cut as a curve." It's
> essentially a rectangle attached to a two-ply band.
Not at the Hathaway factory.
--
John W. Kennedy
(Working from my laptop)
Greg Reynolds
"John W. Kennedy" wrote:
> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> > The small modern shirt collar is not "cut as a curve." It's
> > essentially a rectangle attached to a two-ply band.
>
> Not at the Hathaway factory.
>
At Whateley they're buttoning down.
Elizabeth Weir
> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> > The small modern shirt collar is not "cut as a curve." It's
> > essentially a rectangle attached to a two-ply band.
>
> Not at the Hathaway factory.
You took a tour of the Hathaway factory?
Neuendorffer
1) before our U.S. (Freemason) Constitution:
<<Canning says that THREE TAILORS of Tooley Street, Southwark
, addressed a petition of grievances to the House of Commons,
beginning- ``We, the people of England.''>>
As You Like It Act 5, Scene 4
TOUCHSTONE If any man doubt that, let him put me to my
purgation. I have trod a measure; I have flattered
a lady; I have been politic with my friend, smooth
with mine enemy; I have undone THREE TAILORS; I have
had four quarrels, and like to have fought one.
2) Freemason Sir Walter Scott gave us that fashionable cavalier
or pedantic fop (Sir Piercie) Shatton, "who assumes the
high-flown style rendered fashionable by Lyly"
and was the grandson of Overstitch the TAILOR. (_Monastery_)
3) Thomas Nashe's alias, Pasquil, wrote Pasquinades: <<lampoons or
political squibs, having ridicule for its object; so called from
Pasquino, an Italian TAILOR of the fifteenth century, noted for his
caustic wit. Some time after his death a mutilated statue was dug up,
representing either Ajax supporting Menelaos, or Menelaos carrying the
dead body of Patroclos, or else a gladiator, and was placed at the end
of the Braschi Palace near the Piazza Navoni. As it was not clear what
the statute represented, and as it stood opposite Pasquin's house, the
Italians called it ``Pasquin.'' The Romans made this torso the
depository of their political, religious, and personal satires, which
were therefore called Pasquin-songs or Pasquinades. In the Capitol is a
rival statue called Marforio, to which are affixed replies to the
Pasquinades.>>
4)<<Plutarch says that Sertorius, in order to teach his soldiers that
perseverance and wit are better than brute force, had two horses brought
before them, and set two men to pull out their tails. One of the men
was a burly Hercules, who tugged and tugged, but all to no purpose; the
other was a sharp, weasen-faced TAILOR, who plucked one hair at a time,
amidst roars of laughter, and soon left the tail quite bare.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> > > The small modern shirt collar is not "cut as a curve." It's
> > > essentially a rectangle attached to a two-ply band.
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwke...@bellatlantic.net> wrote
> > Not at the Hathaway factory.
Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> You took a tour of the Hathaway factory?
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.hathaway.com/html/history.html
<<In the early 1800's, shirts were homemade
or TAILOR-made. But Charles F. Hathaway,
a Boston shop-owner, wanted to sell
ready-made shirts and shirts of the finest
TAILOR-made quality that would be readily
available. So he made them himself, and
"invented" the ready-made shirt business.
In 1837, he moved to Waterville, Maine
and a house on Appleton Street.
Employing women from nearby farms, he
produced two dozen hand-sewn shirts
each week. By 1853, he had a full-fledged
factory, and the first simple sewing
machines were coming into use. In 1893,
when Charles F. Hathaway died, the
company passed to his protege, Clarence
A. Leighton, who continued to expand
and modernize. The fame of Hathaway
shirts spread to all of New England, and
then to all of America.
The “Hathaway Man” appeared
for the first time in 1951.
With his distinctive eye-patch,
he became a world famous symbol.>>
*****************************************************************
A needle => A TAILOR's Sword
<<The TAILORS cross-legged on their boards,
Needle-armed, hand-extended, prepared
To stab the black cloth with their swords [to make up mourning]
The instant that death is declared.>>
Oxford was having fencing practice with his TAILOR, Edward Baynham,
when Thomas Brincknell skewered himself on Oxford's rapier?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Merovingian Dagobert II, was murdered by
A LANCE PIERCED THROUGH HIS EYE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Handel was Born 50 miles from Eisenach, Bach's birthplace in the same
year as Bach. In 1719 Bach attempted to arrange a meeting with the
visiting Handel. Although this meeting never took place, in one of the
curious ironies of music history, both men would be afflicted with
cataracts in their old age, undergo surgery at the hand of the same
oculist, John TAYLOR, and die from SEPSIMIA induced as a consequence
of un-sterile instruments employed to push the cataract covered lense
back into the eyeball (in an attempt to allow some light to enter).
http://www2.nau.edu/~tas3/handel.html
---------------------------------------------------------------
<bookburn...@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
>Sliding a thin tool past the eye into the brain
>is the stuff of secret agents and medieval peasants
> dispatching an armored knight.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The RECKONING of M A Rlo & H I R A M
---------------------------------------------------------------
T O T H E o n L I E B E G E T T
E{r o f}T {H} e S E I N S U I N G
S O N N {E} T S (M) R W H{a l l}H A
P P I {N}e S S E (A) N D T H A T E
T E {R}n I T I E P (R)o M I S E D
B {Y}o U R E V E R l(I) V I N G P
O.E. T W I S H E T H T (H) E W E L
L |W] I S H I N G A D V E N T U R
E |R] I N S E T T I N G {f o r} T H
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 1 Kings.7:13 calls Hiram (Abif?) "a widow's son"
Hiram 'a son'
Hiram 'a filho' (in Portuguese)
/ \
HiRAM Abif | MARlo 'a fib'
Both HiRAM Abif and MARlo were
stabbed above the right eye by "three rufians."
<<At the funeral [of Galois' father] serious disorder broke out.
Stones were hurled by the enraged citizens; A PRIEST WAS GASHED ON THE
FOREHEAD. Galois saw his father's coffin lowered into the grave in the
midst of an unseemly riot. . . [Galois, himself, was to be] buried in
the common ditch of the South Cemetery, so that today there remains no
trace of the grave of Evariste Galois. [And yet Galois' mother
Adelaide-Marie Demante didn't die until 40 years later at the age of
eighty four?] Galois' enduring Monument is his collected works. They
fill sixty pages.>> - _Men of Mathematics_ E.T. Bell
---------------------------------------------------------------
THE WARDEN by Anthony Trollope
CHAPTER I Hiram's Hospital
The Rev. SEPTIMUS Harding was, a few years since,
a beneficed clergyman residing in the cathedral town of ---;
let us call it Barchester. Were we to name Wells or Salisbury,
Exeter, Hereford, or Gloucester, it might be presumed that
something personal was intended; and as this tale will refer
mainly to the cathedral dignitaries of the town in question, we
are anxious that no personality may be suspected. Let us presume
that Barchester is a quiet town in the West of England,
more remarkable for the beauty of its cathedral and the
antiquity of its monuments than for any commercial prosperity;
that the west end of Barchester is the cathedral close, and that
the aristocracy of Barchester are the bishop, dean, and canons,
with their respective wives and daughters.
Now there are peculiar circumstances connected with the
precentorship which must be explained. In the year 1434
there died at Barchester one John Hiram, who had made
money in the town as a wool-stapler, and in his will he left
the house in which he died and certain meadows and closes
near the town, still called Hiram's Butts, and Hiram's PATCH,
for the support of twelve superannuated wool-carders, all of
whom should have been born and bred and spent their days in
Barchester; he also appointed that an alms-house should be
built for their abode, with a fitting residence for a warden,
which warden was also to receive a certain sum annually out
of the rents of the said butts and PATCHES. He, moreover,
willed, having had a soul alive to harmony, that the precentor
of the cathedral should have the option of being also warden
of the almshouses, if the bishop in each case approved.
-----------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
John W. Kennedy
In the 50's, my father RAN the Hathaway factories (VP/Mnfg). Ca. 1960,
a conglomerate bought the company out and fired most of the executives,
including my father, and then proceeded to run it into the ground. A
couple of years back, the last surviving factory was about to be shut
down when the State of Maine, the union [U.N.I.T.E.], and a local
venture capitalist arranged a buy-out; the company is slowly making a
comeback, and I'm watching with glee. I stop in at the factory store
whenever I'm in Waterville.
Charles Gillen
>> You took a tour of the Hathaway factory?
>I stop in at the factory store whenever I'm in Waterville.
Don't forget to pick up a Hathaway eye-patch :^)
Did the 'Hathaway Man' predate the 'Marlboro Man'?
Does anybody recall the catchphrase coined by Elliot Springs for his
Springmaid sheets?
Picture an Amerindian brave in repose, over the caption:
A BUCK WELL SPENT ON A SPRINGMAID SHEET.
Not PC, but unforgettable.
The 16th century gave us Shakespeare... the 20th, jingles.
--
NoSpam address: gillenc at home dot com
Charles Gillen -- Reston, Virginia, USA
John W. Kennedy
>
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwke...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
> >> You took a tour of the Hathaway factory?
>
> >I stop in at the factory store whenever I'm in Waterville.
>
> Don't forget to pick up a Hathaway eye-patch :^)
Actually, when my kid brother had amblyopia, that's exactly what we did.
> Did the 'Hathaway Man' predate the 'Marlboro Man'?
Yes, by 15 years or so.
For what it's worth, the original eyepatch was quite real. The model
was an émigré Russian (or Belorus -- I forget) baron who went into
modeling faute de mieux.
Elizabeth Weir
I associate sewing with boredom. My mother believed that 4-H'ers
would never smoke pot, dude.
John W. Kennedy
> In the 50's, my father RAN the Hathaway factories (VP/Mnfg). Ca. 1960,
> a conglomerate bought the company out and fired most of the executives,
> including my father, and then proceeded to run it into the ground. A
> couple of years back, the last surviving factory was about to be shut
> down when the State of Maine, the union [U.N.I.T.E.], and a local
> venture capitalist arranged a buy-out; the company is slowly making a
> comeback, and I'm watching with glee. I stop in at the factory store
> whenever I'm in Waterville.
And the news the morning after I posted this is that the evil bastard
conglomerate just declared Chapter 11! Talk about synchronicity!
--
John W. Kennedy
(Woo-hoo!)