Medieval costume/medieval art
E. C. Lee
Granted, no one will read it, let alone respond, but hey, why not?
I came across a wonderful book at the bookstore yesterday called
"Fabric of Vision", I believe. It's by Anne Hollander, one of my
favorite independent art historians and costume experts. Apparently
it accompanied an exhibit at the National Gallery. I'm very sorry I
missed that one. Looked wonderful.
The premise of the book (and exhibit) was the importance of the
depiction of drapery in art. Although several periods were covered,
the first chapter dealt with our era of interest (the Middle Ages,
silly, not current events!)
A major point the author raised was that the history of fashion and
the history of the depiction of fashion are two different things.
Thus, it serves as a good warning on basing costumes of the times (or
anything else for that matter) solely on illustrations.
I found the mixing of fashion trends of particular interest . Within
a single picture several characters might be wearing costumes from
different time periods. Or an individual costume might have elements
from different eras.
There was also a standard historical garb for biblical figures based
on styles from late Antiquity, but at times and for various reasons
this might be shown with alterations. There was also the trend, as
far as we know beginning with Giotto (or perhaps Cavallini?), to show
figures in a single piece of perfect cloth to emphasize folds, even
though this was unlikely to be any actual fashion. There were
variations on this as well, where one might have ornamental stamps of
pattern on the fabric, but generally nothing was used that could
distract from the play of the folds. Though these costumes may seem
terribly realistic to us when we first look at it, it really makes the
images appear more like painted sculpture more than anything else. So
are painters basing their work on nature in this regard, or merely on
other forms of art?
Anyway, *I* thought it quite interesting and would recommend the book
to others.
JMHO,
Eve
David C Pugh
> Granted, no one will read it, let alone respond, but hey, why not?
Please miss! Please miss! I read it, miss!
Nothing intelligent to say in response, too far outside my competence,
but it was interesting.
David
erilar
<davi...@online.no> wrote:
Same here! Sounds like an interesting book, too 8-)
--
Mary Loomer Oliver(aka erilar)
Erilar's Cave Annex:
http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
centno...@hotmail.com
>Call me crazy, but I thought I'd throw in something on topic.
>Granted, no one will read it, let alone respond, but hey, why not?
Thanks for this post: I've often thought that people who use pictures
- especially manuscript pictures - to make specific points about
clothes and fashions have some serious source-appraisal issues to
contend with! "My" manuscript - Glasgow Hunter 252 - has been
repeatedly examined by people interested in clothing and it is a
particularly tricky one to use for that purpose...
EDEB.
Drew Nicholson
news:f0cfed5b.03022...@posting.google.com...
> Call me crazy, but I thought I'd throw in something on topic.
> Granted, no one will read it, let alone respond, but hey, why not?
>
I read it, and forwarded it to my wife, who is the sewer in the family.
Drew Nicholson
"Drew Nicholson" <anicho...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3595a.174402$SD6.9135@sccrnsc03...
I, of course, am the manhole... :P
Seamstress is what I _meant_ to type...
Kel Rekuta
Noted for the next trip to the bookstore. Would this mention
depictions of armour
"traditionally" applied to specific biblical characters?
Kel
David C Pugh
You beat me to it, I was going to ask where she was drained.
--
David
"From ghouls and ghosties, and long-leggety beasties, and things that go
bump on the Net, Good Lord, deliver us"
Grethe Bachmann
"E. C. Lee" <afro...@yahoo.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:f0cfed5b.03022...@posting.google.com...
Oh I listen - and I read every one of your words!
Thank you for bringing this up - and for the recommendation
of a very interesting book.
IMO costume/ fashion-design is a very important part of
the Middle Ages as well as of our time, but it's not often
mentioned here in shm. Weapons are more popular.
When I was young I had a little with fashion design to do -
just a little, and I think that the costume-design in a movie
is very important for the whole movie-experience - and if
the movie takes place in the Middle Ages, it's exciting to
see how they have handled it.
I'm glad that the Academy Award finally has acknowledged
the costume design in movies.
On TV late Saturday Night I'll watch "Elizabeth 1" with Cate
Blanchett. Didn't see it in the cinema, so I look forward to
seeing it - also because of the luxurious Elizabethan costumes.
The costumes in "Elizabeth 1." were nominated for an AA
in 1998, but it was Sandy Powell's costumes in "Shakespeare in
Love" , who won the AA that year. And they were very beautiful
indeed.
Thank you for this fashion talk!
Cheers
Grethe
Renia
> Call me crazy, but I thought I'd throw in something on topic.
Not allowed. Let's have some more on Israel or Iraq or anything else
which begins with I.
Like Ice Cream.
Renia
Renia
Chortle. There's a vision. Smellyvision.
Renia
(Up to her earballs in Moulin Rouge on CD. Excellent.)
Renia
Boring. You shouldn't have to explain. It was better before!!!
Renia
Armagh444
the history of the depiction of fashion are two different things.
Thus, it serves as a good warning on basing costumes of the times (or
anything else for that matter) solely on illustrations.>>
It sounds like it could be an intriguing book. Did Hollander comment on
whether or not the depiction of contemporary costumes were reflective of the
sumptuary laws current in the place where the art was composed?
E. C. Lee
> In article <ln75a.24835$CG6.4...@news4.e.nsc.no>, "David C Pugh"
> <davi...@online.no> wrote:
>
> > > Call me crazy, but I thought I'd throw in something on topic.
> > > Granted, no one will read it, let alone respond, but hey, why not?
> >
> > Please miss! Please miss! I read it, miss!
> >
> > Nothing intelligent to say in response, too far outside my competence,
> > but it was interesting.
> >
>
> Same here! Sounds like an interesting book, too 8-)
It is. Here's an excerpt-
<<In fifteenth century Northern Europe, the same drive to rival or
outdo sculpture, but with a Gothic rather than a classical model,
resulted in the rise of a different style of pictorial naturalism for
clothes in the work of Jan Van Eyck, Rogier van der Heyden and their
successors. In their vision rendering the atmospheric effects of
light as it revealed the colors and the qualities of textile surfaces,
was more important than striving for the formal and spacial harmony
and conviction achieved in the ancient Greco-Roman drapery, as well as
in the bodies wearing it.
Such a different stylization for making fabric look real was based on
a different sense of perceived reality. In Northern European
painting, the look of fleeting actuality was valued for itself, and
the idealizing aim of art was to intensify it. The aim was to make a
painting look revelatory, rather than rendered, as if the scene in it
were in progress and nothing had been set in position by the painter.
Creating perfection might be simply in showing how the shifting
daylight reveals the sleek surfaced hairs and underlying downiness of
a squirrel fur cuff...
In the idealizing art of these lands with wet cold weather, rare
sunshine and no direct classical heritage, the details of clothing
were painted as if dress was far more naturally beautiful than the
shapes of human bodies, since undress was so non-natural and non-ideal
a condition. Northern painters promoted an opposing beauty in their
precise rendering of the various ways that differently woven fabrics
looked, as light fell over their motions and positions while in use.
For the dress of the Virgin and the saints, it was most often the
wayward behavior of abundant wool that was celebrated, its folds never
regulated, tidied or stilled, always shown as a part of a constantly
shifting sea.>>
Eve
E. C. Lee
> Thank you!
>
> Noted for the next trip to the bookstore. Would this mention
> depictions of armour
> "traditionally" applied to specific biblical characters?
>
> Kel
>
chapter, but I hope that doesn't stop you from looking at the whole
book, as it was all very interesting. I'm sure this chapter could
have easily been expanded into a whole book, and perhaps someday she,
or someone else will do so.
She didn't mention armor, probably because this was really a
discussion of the depiction of clothing and drapery. Those of you who
ARE armor experts might be able to follow through on this to some
extent. I'm sure one could find similar parallels.
Anyone out there who is familiar enough with the depictions of armor
in illustrations to comment on this? Were they generally contemporary
with the illustrations? Were they older pieces of armor to suggest
older times, even if they weren't actually accurate with to the time
depicted? Or were they some sort of combination of styles? Or might
they have been entirely fanciful?
Eve
E. C. Lee
You might want to read some of Hollander's other books. She is
knowledgable about art, costume and film (which is one of the reasons
she's a favorite of mine.) I'd first recommend "Seeing Through
Clothes" which was the inspiration for my thesis on costume designer,
Gilbert Adrian. Another good one is "Moving Pictures" about film and
art history.
IMHO, one of the most interesting uses of visual history in motion
pictures was Sir Laurence Olivier's "Henry V" (hey, we're on topic!)
He takes several approaches in his presentation. For part of the
film, his production people use illustrations contemporary with the
historic Henry as the basis of set design and costume. For other
parts they use images contemporary with Shakespeare. Additional
styles are shown. Some like romantic images filtered through the
19th century Gothic revival, and others taking their cue from the
genre art of the 17th century. And at yet another time he uses what
seems most natural to us, but was actually the vision unique to the
motion picture at that time. These are not arbitrary. There is a
reason for each shift. And in their different ways they ALL work.
JMHO,
Eve
E. C. Lee
You know, I wanted to be terribly clever and come up with some on
topic things that start with *I*, but my mind is slow tonight and I
can't think of any. I hardly think Ivanhoe counts. Any other
*i*deas?
Oh! Just thought of a few that might work. King John's wife. And
Philip Augustus's first wife was also anIsabelle. Then there's Isolde
(Iseult?), on a more literary track. Hmmmm, I'll keep thinking
here...
Eve
E. C. Lee
She didn't mention this. She did discuss about how valuable fabrics
could be. For example, that good fabric could be as precious as
jewelery. Therefore, to display lushly woven materials in all their
glory could indicate status. However, even unimportant figures might
still wear nice, though perhaps, more simple fabric, in a painting.
Biblical characters often wore exceptionally fine fabrics which would
probably indicate their importance rather than reflect their lifestyle
on earth..
Hollander did not restrict herself to fabrics in costume. She
discussed how fine fabrics would also be shown behind figures of honor
and that this actually was a practice at the time. This became more
important in later years where the ceremonial fabrics end up so
animated that they seemed to take on a life of their own, something
that really didn't happen in the Middle Ages.
An important point she made was that despite the elaborateness of the
folds in the Renaissance and later Middle Ages, they also had some
connection with the reality of how folds and costume works. After
Michelangelo, this was no longer always the case.
Eve
David Read
<afro...@yahoo.com> writes
David Starkey made the point that such a sumptuous rendition of clothing
at the expense of the human form by an artist could even affect matters
of state. In his TV series on the wives of Henry VIII, currently being
reshown in the UK on Channel Four, he discusses Holbein's portrait of
Ann of Cleves, which Henry had commissioned prior to his decision to
marry Ann. Holbein concentrated his efforts on her clothing and, her
facial features, while attractive enough and probably a reasonable
likeness, were virginal and ethereal almost to the point of being bland.
I don't know whether Henry was so much disappointed in her looks, i.e.,
her face, when he first saw her, although Starkey makes the point that
from Holbein's portrait Henry would have had to fill in the details that
he wished to see, and had been encouraged to see, from the descriptions
of her beauty from his and Thomas Cromwell's agents. The first meeting
between Ann and Henry got off to a bad start through a misunderstanding,
caused by Henry's chivalric idealisation of his imagined Ann, and her
failure to recognise the king, who had first approached her unannounced
and in disguise.
Henry was later to cite the reason for his inability to consummate the
marriage as his distaste for her large and pendulous breasts, and
rounded belly.
Poor Ann. Poor Henry.
cheers,
--
David Read
David Read
<afro...@yahoo.com> writes
>You know, I wanted to be terribly clever and come up with some on
>topic things that start with *I*, but my mind is slow tonight and I
>can't think of any. I hardly think Ivanhoe counts. Any other
>*i*deas?
Iconoclasts. We need more of 'em.
cheers,
--
David Read
David C Pugh
news:7JIDkGA6...@dreadful.demon.co.uk...
Sure do.
Illustrations -- did that with Michael already.
Innocent III
Ibn anybody -- oops, back to square one.
Grethe Bachmann
Thank you for the info about Olivier. He's one of my favorite
actors. I also remember him for his great interpretation of Hamlet
- with white hair and in a dashing velvet dress.
With an "I":
Isabella d'Este
And then there is Elisabeth who is also know as_ Isabella_ of Hungary.
(I had some notes on her in connection to an article on herbs - but
I can't find them.) She was known for her great beauty, and she kept
this beauty by bathing in rosemary oils and other stuff like that.
There is a story about how she caught one of her husbands, Wladislaw
of Poland. She arranged it so that he accidentially saw her in the bath -
and then he was absolutely hooked and married her.
If you know something about this Isabella, I'd like to know. I've
tried the I-net but I can only find a little about her in connection to
Wladislaw.
Best wishes
Grethe
E. C. Lee
> "David Read" <da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:7JIDkGA6...@dreadful.demon.co.uk...
> > In article <f0cfed5b.03022...@posting.google.com>, E. C. Lee
> > <afro...@yahoo.com> writes
> > >You know, I wanted to be terribly clever and come up with some on
> > >topic things that start with *I*, but my mind is slow tonight and I
> > >can't think of any. I hardly think Ivanhoe counts. Any other
> > >*i*deas?
> >
> > Iconoclasts. We need more of 'em.
> >
>
> Sure do.
>
> Illustrations -- did that with Michael already.
Oh yeah, illuminations!
>
> Innocent III
>
> Ibn anybody -- oops, back to square one.
Now stop that! ;-)
Eve
E. C. Lee
Lucky us, though. It's a beautiful painting.
Wonderful TV series, BTW. Haven't seen it for years but I still
remember it vividly.
Eve
David Read
<afro...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>Lucky us, though. It's a beautiful painting.
Indeed.
>
>Wonderful TV series, BTW. Haven't seen it for years but I still
>remember it vividly.
Are you thinking of something else ? David Starkey's _The Six Wives of
Henry VIII_ came out in 2001.
Starkey is not to be confused with Keith Michell. :-)
http://www.sbu.ac.uk/stafflag/davidstarkey.html
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/S/htmlS/sixwivesof/sixwivesof.htm
cheers,
--
David Read
Michael Kuettner
"E. C. Lee" <afro...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:f0cfed5b.03022...@posting.google.com...
> "David C Pugh" <davi...@online.no> wrote in message
news:<NbH5a.30791$Rc7.4...@news2.e.nsc.no>...
> > "David Read" <da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:7JIDkGA6...@dreadful.demon.co.uk...
> > > In article <f0cfed5b.03022...@posting.google.com>, E. C.
Lee
> > > <afro...@yahoo.com> writes
> > > >You know, I wanted to be terribly clever and come up with some on
> > > >topic things that start with *I*, but my mind is slow tonight and I
> > > >can't think of any. I hardly think Ivanhoe counts. Any other
> > > >*i*deas?
> > >
> > > Iconoclasts. We need more of 'em.
You're working with "Windows", too ? ;-)
> > >
> >
> > Sure do.
> >
> > Illustrations -- did that with Michael already.
>
> Oh yeah, illuminations!
Hick, yeeah, whe wass prddy ill - ill - enl-
enlightened, mam !
> >
> > Innocent III
He was still innocent after the IIIrd time ?
Are you pulling my leg ?
> >
> > Ibn anybody -- oops, back to square one.
>
> Now stop that! ;-)
Why ?
What have you got against Ibn Illuminatus, the head
of the Ismailian Rosencrucians ?
I'll add Iedrich II. and of course the
Inger (Merov and Carol) - on IInd thought, maybe I should
rephrase the last part of the sentence.
Iers,
Ichael Kuettner
E. C. Lee
> "E. C. Lee" <afro...@yahoo.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:f0cfed5b.03022...@posting.google.com...
> > Renia <Re...@otenet.gr> wrote in message
> news:<3E5579B6...@otenet.gr>...
> > > E. C. Lee wrote:
> > > > Call me crazy, but I thought I'd throw in something on topic.
> > >
> > > Not allowed. Let's have some more on Israel or Iraq or anything else
> > > which begins with I.
> > >
> > > Like Ice Cream.
> > >
> > > Renia
> >
> > You know, I wanted to be terribly clever and come up with some on
> > topic things that start with *I*, but my mind is slow tonight and I
> > can't think of any. I hardly think Ivanhoe counts. Any other
> > *i*deas?
> >
> > Oh! Just thought of a few that might work. King John's wife. And
> > Philip Augustus's first wife was also anIsabelle. Then there's Isolde
> > (Iseult?), on a more literary track. Hmmmm, I'll keep thinking
> > here...
> >
> > Eve
>
> Thank you for the info about Olivier. He's one of my favorite
> actors. I also remember him for his great interpretation of Hamlet
> - with white hair and in a dashing velvet dress.
>
> With an "I":
>
> Isabella d'Este
>
up as her for Halloween one year.
> And then there is Elisabeth who is also know as_ Isabella_ of Hungary.
> (I had some notes on her in connection to an article on herbs - but
> I can't find them.) She was known for her great beauty, and she kept
> this beauty by bathing in rosemary oils and other stuff like that.
> There is a story about how she caught one of her husbands, Wladislaw
> of Poland. She arranged it so that he accidentially saw her in the bath -
> and then he was absolutely hooked and married her.
> If you know something about this Isabella, I'd like to know. I've
> tried the I-net but I can only find a little about her in connection to
> Wladislaw.
>
I'm not familiar with her, but I might try out the rosemary oil some
time! ;-)
Eve
Renia
Renia
David C Pugh
news:b38s2e$sik$4...@rex.ip-plus.net...
> > > > >You know, I wanted to be terribly clever and come up with some on
> > > > >topic things that start with *I*, but my mind is slow tonight and I
> > > > >can't think of any. I hardly think Ivanhoe counts. Any other
> > > > >*i*deas?
> > > >
> > > > Iconoclasts. We need more of 'em.
>
> You're working with "Windows", too ? ;-)
Dig up the bones of the icon-o-tools!
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sure do.
> > >
> > > Illustrations -- did that with Michael already.
> >
> > Oh yeah, illuminations!
>
> Hick, yeeah, whe wass prddy ill - ill - enl-
> enlightened, mam !
Strong beer they have at Blackpool, during the Illuminations......
> > >
> > > Innocent III
>
> He was still innocent after the IIIrd time ?
> Are you pulling my leg ?
Scout's Honorius!
> > >
> > > Ibn anybody -- oops, back to square one.
> >
> > Now stop that! ;-)
>
> Why ?
> What have you got against Ibn Illuminatus, the head
> of the Ismailian Rosencrucians ?
Oh, him. His claims to be the light of the Sun were mere Shams.
> I'll add Iedrich II.
No relation to Heydrich?
and of course the
> Inger (Merov and Carol) - on IInd thought, maybe I should
> rephrase the last part of the sentence.
So both Merov and Carol were Ingres? Which one painted the bourgeoises
and which one the odalisques?
E. C. Lee
> In article <f0cfed5b.03022...@posting.google.com>, E. C. Lee
> <afro...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> >
> >Lucky us, though. It's a beautiful painting.
>
> Indeed.
> >
> >Wonderful TV series, BTW. Haven't seen it for years but I still
> >remember it vividly.
>
> Are you thinking of something else ? David Starkey's _The Six Wives of
> Henry VIII_ came out in 2001.
>
> Starkey is not to be confused with Keith Michell. :-)
>
> http://www.sbu.ac.uk/stafflag/davidstarkey.html
>
other version (obviously out of touch here). How was it?
Eve
> http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/S/htmlS/sixwivesof/sixwivesof.htm
>
> cheers,
Michael Kuettner
"David C Pugh" <davi...@online.no> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:xyT5a.25663$CG6.4...@news4.e.nsc.no...
> "Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> wrote in message
> news:b38s2e$sik$4...@rex.ip-plus.net...
>
> > > > > >You know, I wanted to be terribly clever and come up with some
on
> > > > > >topic things that start with *I*, but my mind is slow tonight
and I
> > > > > >can't think of any. I hardly think Ivanhoe counts. Any other
> > > > > >*i*deas?
> > > > >
> > > > > Iconoclasts. We need more of 'em.
> >
> > You're working with "Windows", too ? ;-)
>
> Dig up the bones of the icon-o-tools!
>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sure do.
> > > >
> > > > Illustrations -- did that with Michael already.
> > >
> > > Oh yeah, illuminations!
> >
> > Hick, yeeah, whe wass prddy ill - ill - enl-
> > enlightened, mam !
>
> Strong beer they have at Blackpool, during the Illuminations......
>
Eh - it was Bluepool before you illuminated in it !
But your point stands, strong beer ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Innocent III
> >
> > He was still innocent after the IIIrd time ?
> > Are you pulling my leg ?
>
> Scout's Honorius!
>
Now, how often have I heard that ?
> > > >
> > > > Ibn anybody -- oops, back to square one.
> > >
> > > Now stop that! ;-)
> >
> > Why ?
> > What have you got against Ibn Illuminatus, the head
> > of the Ismailian Rosencrucians ?
>
> Oh, him. His claims to be the light of the Sun were mere Shams.
>
You mean his claims aren't reflected in historiography ?
Sham on him, then.
> > I'll add Iedrich II.
>
> No relation to Heydrich?
>
Now, did I write friggin' Eydrich or friggin' Iedrich ?
Can ya not read ?
> and of course the
> > Inger (Merov and Carol) - on IInd thought, maybe I should
> > rephrase the last part of the sentence.
>
> So both Merov and Carol were Ingres? Which one painted the
bourgeoises
> and which one the odalisques?
>
They were certainly <censored>ing them, but whether they painted
them, I dunno.
And I can't remember ever reading about a post-coital painting;
post-coital panting, yes.
Off for a smoke ... ;-)
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Michael Kuettner
"Renia" <Re...@otenet.gr> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3E57F75B...@otenet.gr...
> Inquisition Post Mortem?
>
IBM (Incredibly Bad Machines) has a certain medieval
approach towards technology, too. And it's rather painful
to use their automatons ....
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Bill Kent
: "David Read" <da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
: news:7JIDkGA6...@dreadful.demon.co.uk...
:> In article <f0cfed5b.03022...@posting.google.com>, E. C. Lee
:> <afro...@yahoo.com> writes
:> >You know, I wanted to be terribly clever and come up with some on
:> >topic things that start with *I*, but my mind is slow tonight and I
:> >can't think of any. I hardly think Ivanhoe counts. Any other
:> >*i*deas?
:>
:> Iconoclasts. We need more of 'em.
:>
: Sure do.
: Illustrations -- did that with Michael already.
: Innocent III
: Ibn anybody -- oops, back to square one.
Surely you mean square I?
No one seems to have mentioned Investiture yet.
--
Bill Kent
bill...@mail.com
http://www.cif.rochester.edu/~wildcat
David C Pugh
news:b39a8d$72g...@biko.cc.rochester.edu...
> David C Pugh <davi...@online.no> wrote:
> : "David Read" <da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> : news:7JIDkGA6...@dreadful.demon.co.uk...
> :> In article <f0cfed5b.03022...@posting.google.com>, E. C. Lee
> :> <afro...@yahoo.com> writes
> :> >You know, I wanted to be terribly clever and come up with some on
> :> >topic things that start with *I*, but my mind is slow tonight and I
> :> >can't think of any. I hardly think Ivanhoe counts. Any other
> :> >*i*deas?
(...)
> No one seems to have mentioned Investiture yet.
>
Because that's a can of Worms.
Tilmann Chladek
> > No one seems to have mentioned Investiture yet.
> >
>
> Because that's a can of Worms.
Wasn't it rather a Cannossa?
--
Tilmann Chladek
300 Jahre Mittelalter bloss erfunden?
Infos dazu ueber <http://home.snafu.de/tilmann.chladek>
David C Pugh
>
> You know, I wanted to be terribly clever and come up with some
> on topic things that start with *I*, but my mind is slow tonight
> and I can't think of any. I hardly think Ivanhoe counts. Any other
> i*deas?
> > > > > >
> Iconoclasts. We need more of 'em.
> > >
> You're working with "Windows", too ? ;-)
> >
> Dig up the bones of the icon-o-tools!
> >
> Sure do.
> > > > >
> Illustrations -- did that with Michael already.
> > > >
> Oh yeah, illuminations!
> > >
> Hick, yeeah, whe wass prddy ill - ill - enl-
> enlightened, mam !
> >
> Strong beer they have at Blackpool, during the Illuminations......
> >
>
> Eh - it was Bluepool before you illuminated in it !
This discussion is turning antiphotonal.
> But your point stands, strong beer ;-)
>
> > > > >
> Innocent III
> > >
> He was still innocent after the IIIrd time ?
> Are you pulling my leg ?
> >
> Scout's Honorius!
> >
> Now, how often have I heard that ?
Maybe you should stop buying used cars?
> Ibn anybody -- oops, back to square one.
> > > >
> Now stop that! ;-)
> > >
> Why ?
> What have you got against Ibn Illuminatus, the head
> of the Ismailian Rosencrucians ?
> >
> Oh, him. His claims to be the light of the Sun were mere Shams.
> >
> You mean his claims aren't reflected in historiography ?
No, they're reflected in the Sachenspiegel. Unless someone's scraped the
back off.
> Sham on him, then.
Is an Illuminated Isma'ili a Nur-do-well?
> > > I'll add Iedrich II.
> >
> > No relation to Heydrich?
> >
> Now, did I write friggin' Eydrich or friggin' Iedrich ?
> Can ya not read ?
You are obviously some sort of deviant German speaking that not the
Scientistic Austrian German is for which I Top Marks in 1567 obtained.
> > and of course the
> > > Inger (Merov and Carol) - on IInd thought, maybe I should
> > > rephrase the last part of the sentence.
> >
> > So both Merov and Carol were Ingres? Which one painted the
> bourgeoises and which one the odalisques?
> >
> They were certainly <censored>ing them, but whether they painted
> them, I dunno.
> And I can't remember ever reading about a post-coital painting;
> post-coital panting, yes.
And post-coital music -- l'après-midi d'un faune? Now was that Dealius,
Barelyoz or Furry, can't remember?
David C Pugh
news:1fqtum9.iimtfj1xag2wwN%tilmann...@snafu.de...
> David C Pugh <davi...@online.no> wrote:
> [...]
> > > No one seems to have mentioned Investiture yet.
> > >
> >
> > Because that's a can of Worms.
>
> Wasn't it rather a Cannossa?
Mitre been. I'll check up on that and give you a ring.
David Read
<afro...@yahoo.com> writes
>> http://www.sbu.ac.uk/stafflag/davidstarkey.html
>>
>Sure enough, I was thinking of the wrong one. Didn't know of any
>other version (obviously out of touch here). How was it?
>
It's a documentary series with actors, and David Starkey wandering about
on location as a very entertaining talking head. Starkey might not be to
everyone's taste. I like his style.
cheers,
--
David Read
Martin Reboul
David Read
> David Starkey made the point that such a sumptuous rendition of clothing
> at the expense of the human form by an artist could even affect matters
> of state. In his TV series on the wives of Henry VIII, currently being
> reshown in the UK on Channel Four, he discusses Holbein's portrait of
> Ann of Cleves, which Henry had commissioned prior to his decision to
> marry Ann. Holbein concentrated his efforts on her clothing and, her
> facial features, while attractive enough and probably a reasonable
> likeness, were virginal and ethereal almost to the point of being bland.
>
> I don't know whether Henry was so much disappointed in her looks, i.e.,
> her face, when he first saw her, although Starkey makes the point that
> from Holbein's portrait Henry would have had to fill in the details that
> he wished to see, and had been encouraged to see, from the descriptions
> of her beauty from his and Thomas Cromwell's agents. The first meeting
> between Ann and Henry got off to a bad start through a misunderstanding,
> caused by Henry's chivalric idealisation of his imagined Ann, and her
> failure to recognise the king, who had first approached her unannounced
> and in disguise.
That's the trouble with blind dates!
The medieval equivalent of booking a Russian bride on Match.com based on the
photo on her profile.....
> Henry was later to cite the reason for his inability to consummate the
> marriage as his distaste for her large and pendulous breasts, and
> rounded belly.
What a hypocrite - the perfect match for him you'd have thought?
Cheers
Martin
Brian M. Scott
<davi...@online.no> wrote:
>"Bill Kent" <bill...@mail.com> wrote in message
[...]
>> No one seems to have mentioned Investiture yet.
> Because that's a can of Worms.
It's hard for even the pope to cope with a can of Worms, but if
you season 'em well and cook 'em in a big vat 'e can.
Brian
David C Pugh
news:3e58fed1....@enews.newsguy.com...
When the smoke turns white, does that mean they're ready?
Brian M. Scott
<davi...@online.no> wrote:
>"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
>news:3e58fed1....@enews.newsguy.com...
>> On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 09:33:33 +0100, "David C Pugh"
>> <davi...@online.no> wrote:
>> >"Bill Kent" <bill...@mail.com> wrote in message
>> [...]
>> >> No one seems to have mentioned Investiture yet.
>> > Because that's a can of Worms.
>> It's hard for even the pope to cope with a can of Worms, but if
>> you season 'em well and cook 'em in a big vat 'e can.
> When the smoke turns white, does that mean they're ready?
I think it means that even the smoke can't take it any more!
Brian
David C Pugh
Or that the Worms are cooked to the right Consistory?
erilar
<davi...@online.no> wrote:
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
> news:3e594cde....@enews.newsguy.com...
> > On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:51:50 +0100, "David C Pugh"
> > <davi...@online.no> wrote:
> >
> > >"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
> > >news:3e58fed1....@enews.newsguy.com...
> >
> > >> On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 09:33:33 +0100, "David C Pugh"
> > >> <davi...@online.no> wrote:
> >
> > >> >"Bill Kent" <bill...@mail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > >> [...]
> >
> > >> >> No one seems to have mentioned Investiture yet.
> >
> > >> > Because that's a can of Worms.
> >
> > >> It's hard for even the pope to cope with a can of Worms, but if
> > >> you season 'em well and cook 'em in a big vat 'e can.
> >
> > > When the smoke turns white, does that mean they're ready?
> >
> > I think it means that even the smoke can't take it any more!
> >
>
> Or that the Worms are cooked to the right Consistory?
>
That's the first 8-) I've ever had from the i%&*)&(*)^ controversy.
(I'm a Staufer adherent)
--
Mary Loomer Oliver(aka erilar)
Erilar's Cave Annex:
http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
Michael Kuettner
> > Innocent III
> > > >
> > He was still innocent after the IIIrd time ?
> > Are you pulling my leg ?
> > >
> > Scout's Honorius!
> > >
> > Now, how often have I heard that ?
>
> Maybe you should stop buying used cars?
>
which was a priest who never ever drove it and was a
little old lady anyway and the car stood in the garage most
of the time and it practically runs on holy water ....
> > Ibn anybody -- oops, back to square one.
> > > > >
> > Now stop that! ;-)
> > > >
> > Why ?
> > What have you got against Ibn Illuminatus, the head
> > of the Ismailian Rosencrucians ?
> > >
> > Oh, him. His claims to be the light of the Sun were mere Shams.
> > >
> > You mean his claims aren't reflected in historiography ?
>
> No, they're reflected in the Sachenspiegel. Unless someone's scraped
the
> back off.
>
No, that would be Uebbn Uelluemminatues, the hoed oef thoe
Uesmuellian Roesnkruetzler.
(ue,oe= umlaut, ever heard a Sachse speak ? ;-))
> > Sham on him, then.
>
> Is an Illuminated Isma'ili a Nur-do-well?
>
AFAIK, he's a Pissedma'ili ;-)
> > > > I'll add Iedrich II.
> > >
> > > No relation to Heydrich?
> > >
> > Now, did I write friggin' Eydrich or friggin' Iedrich ?
> > Can ya not read ?
>
> You are obviously some sort of deviant German speaking that not the
> Scientistic Austrian German is for which I Top Marks in 1567 obtained.
>
Stop speaking Ingerman. My brane hurts.
Now I'll have to go and do a chemical reset. ;-)
> > > and of course the
> > > > Inger (Merov and Carol) - on IInd thought, maybe I should
> > > > rephrase the last part of the sentence.
> > >
> > > So both Merov and Carol were Ingres? Which one painted the
> > bourgeoises and which one the odalisques?
> > >
> > They were certainly <censored>ing them, but whether they painted
> > them, I dunno.
> > And I can't remember ever reading about a post-coital painting;
> > post-coital panting, yes.
>
> And post-coital music -- l'après-midi d'un faune? Now was that
Dealius,
> Barelyoz or Furry, can't remember?
>
That was inter-coital music. How do you think that the little bugger spent
his afternoon ? ;-)
The composer was Deviouz.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
David C Pugh
> That's the first 8-) I've ever had from the i%&*)&(*)^ controversy.
> (I'm a Staufer adherent)
Me too. Say, let's get together in a good restaurant, ritually curse
Folleprandus and then Stauf ourselves :-)
David C Pugh
> <snip>
> > > Ibn anybody -- oops, back to square one.
> > > > > >
> > > Now stop that! ;-)
> > > > >
> > > Why ?
> > > What have you got against Ibn Illuminatus, the head
> > > of the Ismailian Rosencrucians ?
> > > >
> > > Oh, him. His claims to be the light of the Sun were mere Shams.
> > > >
> > > You mean his claims aren't reflected in historiography ?
> >
> > No, they're reflected in the Sachenspiegel. Unless someone's scraped
> the back off.
> >
> No, that would be Uebbn Uelluemminatues, the hoed oef thoe
> Uesmuellian Roesnkruetzler.
> (ue,oe= umlaut, ever heard a Sachse speak ? ;-))
That sounds just like a friend of mine from the Rhineland who speaks
Norwegian after having learnt Swedish. :-)
> > > Sham on him, then.
> >
> > Is an Illuminated Isma'ili a Nur-do-well?
> >
> AFAIK, he's a Pissedma'ili ;-)
You can't get pissed on Sevener-Up.
> > > > > I'll add Iedrich II.
> > > >
> > > > No relation to Heydrich?
> > > >
> > > Now, did I write friggin' Eydrich or friggin' Iedrich ?
> > > Can ya not read ?
> >
> > You are obviously some sort of deviant German speaking that not the
> > Scientistic Austrian German is for which I Top Marks in 1567 obtained.
> >
> Stop speaking Ingerman. My brane hurts.
> Now I'll have to go and do a chemical reset. ;-)
Or even a disk-wipe and reinstall :-)
> > > > and of course the
> > > > > Inger (Merov and Carol) - on IInd thought, maybe I should
> > > > > rephrase the last part of the sentence.
> > > >
> > > > So both Merov and Carol were Ingres? Which one painted the
> > > bourgeoises and which one the odalisques?
> > > >
> > > They were certainly <censored>ing them, but whether they painted
> > > them, I dunno.
> > > And I can't remember ever reading about a post-coital painting;
> > > post-coital panting, yes.
> >
> > And post-coital music -- l'après-midi d'un faune? Now was that
> Dealius, Barelyoz or Furry, can't remember?
> >
> That was inter-coital music. How do you think that the little bugger spent
> his afternoon ? ;-)
Inter-coital music, hm. And intRA-coital, that has to be "Bolero".......
> The composer was Deviouz.
I've been informed who the actual composer of "l'après-midi d'un faune"
was, and it's far too good to be true :-)
erilar
<davi...@online.no> wrote:
> "erilar" <erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> wrote in message
>
> > That's the first 8-) I've ever had from the i%&*)&(*)^ controversy.
> > (I'm a Staufer adherent)
>
> Me too. Say, let's get together in a good restaurant, ritually curse
> Folleprandus and then Stauf ourselves :-)
>
I did too much of the latter last weekend. I fear I need to observe
Lent. Not belonging to a sect that does so, however, I'm not sure just
what I'm supposed to give up. Cookies and ice cream, probably.
Martin Reboul
Renia wrote...
> Inquisition Post Mortem?
Inquisiton (Spanish)
Illegitamacy
Incontinence (of the violent kind)
Illegible writing
Inconstancy
Illiteracy
Inns (much favoured)
Infallibility (Papal)
Incomprehensibility (all round)
Indulgence (i.e. Edward IV)
Imbibing (ditto)
Inebriation (ditto)
Incompetence (Henry VI)
Indignance (Warwick the Kingmaker)
Improper behaviour (many)
Impaling (Sir John Tiptoft & Vlad Tepes)
Illness (plague etc.)
Importuning (general)
Interrogations (painful)
Intercourse (much enjoyed)
Innuendo, smutty (ballads and poems)
Incisive wit (Sir Thomas More)
Intransigence (religious, political and military)
Ill-will (widespread)
Incredulity (ditto)
Intolerance (ditto)
Insanity (ditto)
...... it goes on and on!
An awful lot od 'In's I suppose, and many 'I's seen in any age.
What about 'U's??
Cheers
Martin