The eerie sister portraits

For some reason the middle of the 16th century seem to be a period where portraits of sisters became popular. With slight differences in clothing, or contrastingly the same, and with still, almost dead faces, these classically stiff late 16th century depictions have come to enchant me.

They do, in their creepy lifeless way, remind me of the 19th century photographs of dead family members that was a fashion at the time. Let me show you the early modern ones I have found and tell you a little about who the portrayed people are:

Golden girls Isabella & Catalina

Sisters Isabel Clara Eugenia and Catalina Micaela, by Alonso Sánchez Coello, 1575.

This beautiful cone shaped sister portrait shows Isabella Clara Eugenia (left) who would later become the queen of Spain, and Catalina Micaela (right) who would become queen of Austria. With only one year between the sisters they are very close in age in this picture, 10 and 9 years old. Both sisters were intensely loved by their father Philip II of Spain.

Isabella – clever & always daddy’s girl

The older sister Isabella had an eventful life. She was all her life very much a daddys girl, and the only one her father would allow close enough to be his private secretary, and she handled important matters of the state during her fathers illness the last three years of his life. You go girl!

Isabella was most of her life betrothed to the holy roman emperor Rudolf II, who luckily enough broke the engagement when Isabella Clara was 20 years old. Isabella thereby dodged a bullet unknowingly, because Rudolf would later in his life go bonkers with mental illness, and die alone and dethroned in Prague 1612.

Isabellas father didn’t give up on his precious daughter and sorted out a marriage with Albert VII, at the time a cardinal. Albert threw away his priestly robes and married Isabella Clara 1599. Isabella’s life would be one of war and peace, her reign is considered the Golden Age of the Spanish Netherlands. The couple never had any children and Isabella ended her years in a nunnery.

Catalina – the arrogant art lover

Isabellas sister Catalina was famous for being beautiful, arrogant, intelligent and quite snobbish, all too aware of her high social status. Traits that didn’t always make her popular. She was married to the hunky war mongering Charles Emmanuel I, Duke of Savoy in 1585. The couple never had any children. Despite Catalina’s horrid personality she eventually developed diplomatic and political skills, loving culture and founded many new buildings including an art gallery.

Dark sisters Anne & Elizabeth

“Portrait of two sisters” probably Anne of Denmark and her sister Elizabeth, by Robert Peake the elder,  around 1580.

These two pretty birds in black are two danish sisters, daughters of the Frederick II of Denmark. We see Elizabeth looking slightly constipated with her arm around her sisters back to the right, and a pale Anne to the left with her hand om her sisters leg.

Elizabeth – jokster husband & a lot of fun in the sack

There is not much information about the childhood of Elizabeth of Denmark, the oldest of the two. She was originally intended to marry the not so hunky but still infamous James VI. But strangely enough, it was decided that her sister Anne would be a better match for the limey king. And Elizabeth 1590 instead got handed the duke Henry Julius of Brunswick-Lüneburg who turned out to be quite the jester. At their wedding, before they had ever met, funny Henry Julius disguised himself as a jeweler. He presented Elizabeth with some fine bling, and when she asked the cost he told her “the prize was her body”. Obviously the joker was immediately thrown in jail until he managed to prove his identity and explain that it had been a gag.

Despite this being their first encounter, Elizabeth married Henri Julius and they must have had a happy marriage – it resulted in 10 kids surviving infancy!  But funny Harry didn’t last long, and died 1616. Elizabeth remained unmarried and was busy with politics, having to actively remove her oldest son Friederich Ulrich, him being a ravaging alcoholic, and instead kept regency til the end of her days.

Anne – party girl & toxic fights

Anne of Denmark, seen to the left, we know quite a lot about thanks to her famous husband. She was, as we know, betrothed to the English king James VI at the age of 14. Apparently Anne was very happy with the engagement, reported as being “so far in love with the King’s Majesty as it were death to her to have it broken off and hath made good proof divers ways of her affection which his Majestie is apt enough to requite.” As we can read into this quote, Anne had no clue that James VI was famous for “playing for the other team”, that being probably homosexual or most definately bisexual.

The marriage did take place in 1589 with Anne at the age of 15. The couple seem to have been happy at first, and Anne was popular at her new court. The Venetian envoy, Nicolo Molin, wrote this description of Anne in 1606:

She is intelligent and prudent; and knows the disorders of the government, in which she has no part, though many hold that as the King is most devoted to her, she might play as large a role as she wished. But she is young and averse to trouble; she sees that those who govern desire to be left alone, and so she professes indifference. All she ever does is to beg a favour for someone. She is full of kindness for those who support her, but on the other hand she is terrible, proud, unendurable to those she dislikes.

But James soon took to other lovers, as did Anne, and James grumpily later described marriage as “the greatest earthly felicitie or miserie, that can come to a man”. In fact, the marriage turned into constant fighting. Anne led a cosmopolitan life with dancing at parties and James luckily preferred the countryside so the two rarely spent time together.  When they did the couple fought constantly, from management of the household to religion, and Anne accused the king of being a drunkard: “the King drinks so much, and conducts himself so ill in every respect, that I expect an early and evil result.”

Despite these issues with an unhappy marriage Anne and James did have 7 children together. But when their oldest son Henry Frederick died at the age of 18, their marriage turned even icier and Anne withdrew from social life. James on the other hand found a new hobby in witch hunting, writing his own Demonologie in 1597 and personally attending the torture of women accused of witchcraft. Charming!

All though Anne died as a very unpopular queen next to a very unpopular king, she is remembered as a patron of the arts and she played a crucial role in the political with ambassadors and foreign visitors. She died at the age of 44 at 1619, and was buried next to her husband.

Anne & Mary in matchy black and white

Portrait of Anne Newdigate and Mary Fitton, 1592.

In this puffy and ruffled black and white double portrait we see the older sister Anne in black and the younger sister Mary in white, the fortuned daughters of Lady Alice and Sir Edward Fitton.

Anne – the financial goodie two shoes

Anne Fitton (in black in the painting) was the sensible older sister and was married off at the tender age of twelve, a marriage that seem to have been a happy enough as it resulted in five children. Anne was famous for being a gentlewoman, financial genius and an avid letter writer.

Many of Anne’s account books and letters have survived, and they reveal her role as the financial manager of her household and the respect she had among her peers. She had a great deal of affluent pen pals at court and many of her correspondences are around the court gossip concerning her little sister Mary’s erotic escapades.

Anne became a widow in 1610 and rejected all marriage proposals. Instead she directed her efforts into taking care of her children, and match making them into good marriages. She kept being a active letter writer until the day she died in 1618.

Scandalous & unstable Mary – Shakespeares “dark lady?”

Mary Fitton (in white in the picture) became a maid of honour to Queen Elizabeth in about 1595 with the help of a friend of her father, the much older Sir William Knollys who solemnly promised to take care of Mary at court, as if she was his own daughter. But old git Knollys soon broke that promise as he couldn’t keep his sticky fingers away from Mary, and despite him being already married Knollys kept slobbering over Mary so such an extent that he was mocked at court for it. Mary didn’t seem to cope well with this situation (who can blame her?) and in 1599 she had to go back home after suffering from mental illness and hysteria.

But in 1600 Mary was back at court and was soon noted for being a party girl and seductress with many scandalous affairs at court. One of them led to Mary being pregnant, and both her and her bae were dismissed from court. And the love child sadly died shortly after birth.

Life after court was no less scandalous and Mary kept having flings with married men, and bearing them children. Eventually even Mary caved in, marrying an officer who she outlived on a small welsh property. After her death in 1647 her ghost is reputed to haunt the Gawsworth Hall, where she was buried.

The rumours that Mary could’ve been the inspiration for a Shakespeare sonnet Fair Youth, stems from an 19th century biographer who probably made his own assumptions. But who knows? Maybe Mary had a fling with the greatest writer of all times?

In bed with the Cholmondeley Ladies

“The Cholmondeley ladies”, unknown artist , around 1600.

This surprisingly modern looking english early 17th century painting is by an unknown artist.  An inscription in gold on the bottom left says “Two Ladies of the Cholmondeley Family, Who were born the same day, Married the same day, And brought to Bed the same day.”

At first glance the bedded two sisters look completely identical, almost twins. But if you look closer you soon realize they have slightly different details in their clothing, and also different eye colors (brown and blue) which mean they cant be identical twins. The pose of the two gals is not something we find in paintings of that period, and mostly resembles contemporary tomb sculpture. Creepy!

Mysterious duo

Strangely, who these sisters exactly was is not completely sure. Its been suggested they are the two daughters of Sir Hugh Cholmondeley (1513-1596) and Lady Mary Cholmondeley (died 1563-1625), wife of George Calveley. In that case the sisters we see are Lettice and her sister Mary.

Mary we don’t know anything about, except the inscription on the painting if that information is true. But the older sister Lettice we know married Sir Richard Grosvenor, 1st Baronet. Lettice gained fame in her own right for her lawsuit against her uncle George Holford over the inheritance of her father’s estates. A lawsuit she also won. Good girl!

Ginger twins Sara & Elizabeth

Portrait of Sarah and Elizabeth Poulett, by unknown artist, late 16th century.

Finally a toddler painting, with two pale ginger sisters in matching dark velvet green dresses! This painting is also shrouded in mystery, or the facts around it has at least been forgotten. I cant seem to find anything about these gingettes, part from a portrait of  Elizabeth Poulett by RoBert Peake, which could be the same Elizabeth as in the sisters painting above. Elizabeth married the baron Johan Poulett and nothing is said about her, part from the children they had together.

Who is who?

The mysterious Sarah I cant find anything about. I find a person with her name on a genealogy site. If this is our Sarah, then their father was Amias Poulett (also named Paulett), an english diplomat. Strangely enough, Amias had two daughters called Elizabeth and Sarah, but here it is claimed that Elizabeth died unmarried – completely contrary to the Elizabeth Poulett I found first. Amias daughter Sarah did marry Sir Francis Vincent, 1st Baronet.

The confusion is real! I’ve decided not to venture further with the gingers. The truth is most certainly somewhere out there.

Two dandelion sisters

“Two sisters” by Cornelis de Vos, 1615

This absolutely delightful painting of two sisters almost floating in darkness on their two classic 17th century collars looking like puffed white dandelions about to be scattered in the winds. (I would love to have this painting on my wall at home).

Yet again nothing is known about these sisters, but we know a great deal about the painter Cornelis de Vos. He was a successful Flemish painter known for his sensitive portraits, in particular of families and also his own children. He was being commissioned all over Europe and had quite a successful life.

But the sisters are shrouded in mystery. We can only guess the background of these two beauties.

The armed Kuve twins

The Kuve twins, by anonymous artist, 1630.

More babies! This time it’s the Kuve toddlers. The two-year-old twins Gerdrugt and Conradus Kuve are standing steadily together gripping each others hands and holding some sort of silver objects I can’t really figure out what they are. Daggers? Baby swords?

I cant find anything on these two cutie pies so we just have to enjoy the painting as it is.

The deceased swaddled twins

Alright, its time for a sadder note. Painted in 1617 put part from that nothing is known about these little nuggets except who their parents were. This painting is a memorial of the baby twins sadly leaving this earth together. They are the early-deceased children of flemish Jacob de Graeff and Aeltge Boelens.

Naughty naked nipple sisters

“Gabrielle d’Estrées and her sister” by unknown artist, 1594.

These two raunchy ladies in a bath is Gabrielle d’Estrées to the right getting the nipple pinched – Gabrielle was the favorite mistress of king Henry IV. And the lady doing the pinching to the left is one of Gabrielles sisters, the Duchess de Villars.

So what the heck is going on here? A modern viewer might interpret it simply an 16th century lesbo nudie meant to catch the eye of the king, but as always there are many hidden symbols in this painting. The nipple pinching have been suggested as a symbol for Gabrielle being pregnant with an out-of-wedlock child of king Henry IV. The woman in red in the background seem to confirm this, as she is sowing a layette.

What we do know is that Gabrielle was indeed the kings paramour most of her life, patiently waiting for the him to ditch his official wife, Marguerite de Valois. Gabrielle lived very close to the king and even became his most important diplomat, with her own seat at the kings council. She even bore him three children (all of them actually  legitimized by the king, well done Henry!). But the intense love affair with the king eventually led to Gabrielle’s death before the age of thirty, dying while pregnant with their fourth child, in 1599.

The king was grief-stricken when his Gabby died and reputedly wore black in mourning, something no previous French monarch had done. He gave Gabrielle a funeral fit for a queen – her coffin was transported in a fancy funeral procession of princes, princesses, and nobles all thru Paris.

Why is Gabrielle holding a ring in her hand in the painting? It could be the very coronation ring that king Henry gave Gabrielle as a token of his loyalty to her just years before she died.

What about the other sister in the painting? She was the youngest in the family, given the tongue twister name Julienne-Hippolyte-Joséphine. We do not know much about her, part from fact that she might have had a harder time getting the menses than her sister. Rumor says that Julienne had to bribe a priest into to marrying her to a man called George de Brancas. Despite the rough start, the couple probably had a decent marriage with three kids. Julienne died at the awe-inspiring age of 92.

There we have it

Those are the sister paintings that I have found and been intrigued by. I do not find these types of mirrored sister portraits during early half of the 16th century, so they do seem to be something favored during the late 16th century and early 17th century. The later 17th century and 18th century do have a lot of sisters and siblings portraits but they are much more lively, colorful and contrasted to each other.

If you have any more of these sister portraits of the 16th or 17th century, please let me know in the commentary.

The humble brag of the vanitas

I’ve fallen down a rabbit hole. The rabbit hole of Vanitas. It all started with a beautiful documentary about still lifes in history by BBC called “Apples, Pears and Paint: How to Make a Still Life Painting”. Did you know that the very first still life painting known in European history was the “Basket of fruit” by Caravaggio made 1599? I did not! This painting by Caravaggio is stunning when you look into the details. At first glance it looks like a simple painting of a basket of fruits but its absolutely full of symbolism. The maggot holes in the apple, the spots of fungus, the dying leaves,…

Portrayal of opulence and death

But this documentary gave me an renewed obsession of the art form called vanitas. I already love vanitas of the 1500 and 1600s – the contrast between absolute riches and the reminder of death is thrilling. Christian art already had a morbid tradition of portraying death and decay during middle ages as seen in the Ars moriendi, the Danse Macabre, and the Memento mori becoming especially popular during the 15th century. The vanitas continued this gruesome tradition in its own way. The very word “vanitas ” comes from Latin meaning emptiness, futility, or worthlessness, a central warning in the traditional Christian that earthly goods worthless and transient.

Vanitas is a sub genre of the still life and became insanely popular in northern Europe during the 17th century, especially in Netherlands. During the Dutch Golden Age (1575-1675) Netherlands became extremely rich with a growing powerful middle class demanding a very new form of art for their homes. Being a protestant part of Europe, the vanitas became a way of the new middle class to indulge in over the top still life paintings, but adding the medieval reminder of a fleetness of opulence and the vanity of living. This is why many vanitas include for example skulls or instruments, symbolizing that death is around the corner always:

Common vanitas symbols include skulls, which are a reminder of the certainty of death; rotten fruit (decay); bubbles (the brevity of life and suddenness of death); smoke, watches, and hourglasses (the brevity of life); and musical instruments (brevity and the ephemeral nature of life). Fruit, flowers and butterflies can be interpreted in the same way, and a peeled lemon was, like life, attractive to look at but bitter to taste. (Wikipedia)

Touching the trinkets of history

In my rabbit hole I found so many vanitas I absolutely loved, and most of them are from the 17th century. (I probably need to extend this blog to also include the 17th century haha!). Personally I can’t get enough of them, how life like and detailed they are. Looking at them feels like peeking into treasure chests of the 17th century, and it is such a joy to look at all of the exquisite details. It feels like I could reach out and touch the gems, pearls, old books and juicy fruits of the past. I hope you like them as much as I do:

• 

  Vanitas by Pieter Claesz (1630)

• 

  “Still life with a light candle” by Pieter Claesz (1597)

• 

  “Vanitas still life” by Phillippe de Champaigne (1671)

• 

  “Quince, cabbage, melon and cucumber” by Juan Sanchez Cotan (1600)

• 

  “Vanitas with globe, scepter, a skull crowned with straw” by Hendrick Andriessen (1650)

• 

  “Self portrait with vanitas symbols” by David Bailly (1651)

• 

  Vanitas by Edward Collier (1663)

• 

  “Vanitas” by Edward Collier (1669)

• 

  “Still life with books” by Jan Lievens (1627)

• 

  “Still life with bouquet and skull” by Adriaen van Utrecht (1651)

• 

  “Still Life with a Volume of Wither’s ‘Emblemes'” by Edward Collier (1696)

• 

  “Allegory of Charles I of England and Henrietta of France” by Carstian Luyckx

• 

  “Vanitas” by Edward Collier (1703)

• 

  “Vanitas with jewelry box, skull on a reversed, a globe and a lute” by Edward Collier (1662)

I want to end this entry with a absolutely beautiful vanitas that might surprise you! It is actually a photograph by the modern Australian artist and photographer Kevin Best. I find it being a photo absolutely thrilling, and such an homage to the entire history of the vanitas! Please watch more of his work at his homepage Kevin Best Still Life.

Suggested further reading

→ Early Netherlandish Painting
→ Vanitas: Dutch master paintings explained
→ Edward Collier (1642-1708)
→ Pieter Claesz (1597-1660)
→ Hendrick Andriessen (1607-1655)
→ Adriaen van Utrecht (1599 – 1652)
→ Carstian Luyckx (1623-1675)
→ Jan Lievens (1607-1674)
→ David Bailly (1584-1657)
→ Juan Sanchez Cotan (1560-1627)
→ Phillippe de Champaigne (1602-1674)
→ Kevin Best Still Life

The magician of paint & early modern landscapes

To my delight I’ve found a new favourite painter during the early 16th century. Ive always loved late 15th and early 16th century landscape paintings with the intense colors, vast open sceneries combining detailed nature and lyrical fantasy. And the painter Joachim Patinir seem to be the boss of these techniques.

Patinir was born 1480 and came originally from Dinant or Bouvignes in Belgium. He became registered as a member of Antwerp’s painters’ Guild of Saint Luke in 1515, where he spent the rest of his life.

Patinir had some famous artist friends during the time:  one of his bestties was Quentin Metsys (probably most famous for the painting “The Ugly Duchess” from 1513) with whom he often collaborated, and also the mega celebrity painter during the time Albrecht Dürer. In 1521, Dürer attended Patinirs second wedding and even painted his portrait (I haven’t been able to find this portrait unfortunately). Dürer called Patinir “der gute Landschaftsmaler” (“the good painter of landscapes”)

Patinir died in Antwerp in 1524, and Quentin Metsys became the guardian of his children.

Take a moment to enjoy Patinirs beautiful colorful works:

“The Baptism of Christ” (1510-20)

“Landscape with Saint Jerome” (1516-1517)

“St Jerome in the Desert” (1515-1520)

“Rest during the flght to Egypt” (early 16th century)

“Crossing the River Styx” (1520-1524)

“Landscape with the Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah” (1520)

“Landscape with Saint Christopher” (1522)

“Landscape with the Flight into Egypt” (1516-1517)

“The Penitence of Saint Jerome” (1512-1515)

Saint Guinefort – the miraculous doggo saint!

The medieval cult of saints is a very colorful and intricate religious weave of stories and people. But did you know that during the 13th century a massive cult in France arose – around a dog! His name was Guinefort, Saint Guinefort even. This is his story:

During the 13th century there was a handsome hound named Guinefort, living outside Lyon with a knight and his wife. One day the knight and wife left Guinefort at home babysitting their baby sleeping in a crib. But WOE, a big snake makes it into the house and attacks the crib! Valiant Guinefort quickly turns the crib over, protecting the baby and after a bloody fight kills the sneaky snake. A very good boy indeed!

Bloody turn of events

But when the parents come home to find the baby crying on the floor and their doggo all bloody they think Guinefort attacked their new born child, and the knight immediately kills our hero with a sword. But they soon realize their grave mistake when they find the dead snake  next to the crib… The knight and his wife decides to bury their courageous canine and make him a little shrine. And soon pilgrimages start and a Saint Guinefort cult was born, the pooch patron saint for infants!

Catholic discontent for pooch praise

But obviously the boring catholic church didn’t like this at all and the very evil inquisitor Stephen of Bourbon deemed the Guinefort cult satanic, destroyed the shrine and spread the rumour that all babies that had been taken to the shrine to be blessed was actually sacrificed to the devil.

But we all know better don’t we… all hail our galant Guinefort, the brave french pooch!

(And yes, i know this story isn’t a 16th century one, but I just couldn’t stop myself from telling this magnificent story about a truly miraculous mutt!)

Red – the color of the devil, the pope, the commoner or perhaps Martin Luther?

Satirical diptych, anonymous, 1520-1530.

Color is always an intriguing subject when it comes to historical clothing and social history. We tend to believe that our modern perception of color have stayed unchanged through history but we clearly can find that it  is not so.

Colors seem to get more complicated the deeper you dig into it historically. The symbolism of a color tend to change due to who wears it, what is fashionable and how expensive colors are to produce at the time. I have already sneak peaked at the color blue in the proverb entry “Wrapped in a blue cloak“, where I also end up discussing the color of red slightly.

Red is a very interesting subject when it comes to color. As a modern viewer we are costumed to associating red with lust, eroticism, women and also prostitution (red districts). We also might think about the devil, about love, about anger and Christmas.

Historically the color of red have had many different meanings making it a complicated, and versatile, color. In fact so much so, that I’ve decided to look into the color red. The color red connected to the devil, the holy, the commoner and the Reformation:

The devil in red

We tend to associate red with the devil, in modern times – the devil is almost always depicted in red or in red clothes. Red is one of the few colors mentioned fairly often in the bible, which might be an answer to that. I’ll quote two well known ones, the first one about the “Whore of Babylon” and the second one about sin:

And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness; and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast, full of blasphemous names, having seven heads and ten horns.

And the woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls. She held in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality. On her forehead a mysterious name was written: Babylon the Great, the mother of prostitutes and of the abominations of the earth. (Revelation 17:3)

“Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD, “Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool.” (Isaiah 1:18)

But what does this mean? Does the bible tell us that the color of red is devilish in itself? Or is it possibly used by the devil because the scarlet red was associated with riches and power to people at the time? During biblical times the scarlet red was a very expensive and difficult color to achieve, and only worn by the fortunate. Did the Whore of Babylon “dress in purple and scarlet” to glam the people meeting her, manifesting power and hierarchy with it?

“Whore of Babylon”, illustration from Martin Luther’s translation of the New Testament, 1534. Workshop of Lucas Cranach.

Also the color red is almost impossible to wash out once dyed (especially scarlet). Can this be a reason why it was used in the bible to symbolize the concept of sin – that even red can be turned back to white if you put your faith in Christ.

The holy ones in red

Pope Sixtus, pope during 1521-1590. Unknown artist

Scarlet has symbolized wealth and power, both politically and religiously, since even before ancient Bible times. This color, second only to purple, was a status symbol in the mighty Roman Empire and officers in Rome’s army wore cloaks dyed in it as well as high-ranking non-military people. The production of the dyeing of scarlet was a very expensive and painstaking procedure and could only be afforded by the very wealthy at the time.

Since the late 13^th century Roman Cardinals, who are high-level religious leaders in the Catholic Church, use scarlet for their ecclesiastical clothing. The pope is even today dressed in red – especially his cap Camauro and in the papal red shoes.

Jesus Christ in art during the late medieval and early modern period is frequently portrayed in a robe in red. This plays rather unwell with the notion that red is always a devilish color. In this context in fact, red symbolizes the divine. The color blue is during history often connected the Virgin Mary – we often find her depicted in a blue robe, symbolizing piety, faith and chastity. But in fact the color blue in sakral contexts is a color that represents the secular earth, while red represents the divine. This is why we see Jesus often in a red robe (he is divinity) and sometimes cloaked in blue (secular earthly world). Virgin Mary on the opposite is often dressed in blue (she a earthly woman) but can be seen robed in red (divinity).

“Last Judgement” by Stefan Lochner, c. 1435.

“Resurrection” by Dirk Bouts, 1455

“Christ Appearing to His Mother”, by Follower of Rogier van der Weyden, c. 1475

“God, the Virgin Mary and St. John the Baptist.” Ghent Altarpiece by Hubert and Jan van Eyck, 1432

The commoner in red

I often come upon the claim that red was a color only for the rich and privileged during the late medieval and renaissance period. But yet we find it to be a very popular and common color among the every day man, especially during the 16^th century. How is that possible?

The claim that red was only used by the rich is simply not completely true. Achieving different shades of red in textiles during the medieval period started to become common and fairly easy. It all depended on which kind of of red you wanted. The extremely expensive and exclusive version of red was Scarlet (made from extremely high amount of shells). But during the middle ages we get the the less rich red in the Madder dye:

By the 13^th century, madder was being cultivated on a fairly large scale in Europe […] In the middle ages, Charlemagne encouraged madder cultivation. It grew well in the sandy soils of the Netherlands and became an important part of the local economy. (Source).

The madder reds became very common in Europe and a highly popular color during the renaissance, being a way for commoners to imitate the more expensive reds of the higher classes.

“The wedding dance”, Pieter Bruegel the elder, 1566.

Different kinds of reds was defined through what people called it. For example, there is about 20 different names for shades of red that were used in early modern Britain. A lot of the names are quite… fleshy. (The dates are for when they were first known or when they were notably fashionable):

• Bristol Red – 1500-1580; 1550-80: (a “pleasant” red)
• Scarlet – 1522 (bright red)
• Redds – 1522
• Crimson – 1522 (red)
• Murrey – 1522 (mulberry colour) 1550-80 (purplish red)
• Carnation – 1547-53; 1550-80: (resembling the colour Raw Flesh)
• Incarnate – 1547-53; 1550-80 (raw flesh red)
• Horseflesh – 1559 (possibly a very dark flesh red, like raw horsemeat)
• Blod – 1547-53 (blood red)
• Sangyn – 1550-80 (sanguine; blood red)
• Ox-Blood – 1550-80
• Ruby – 1554
• Gingerline – 1595 (reddish violet)
• Lustie-Gallant – 1550-80: (light red)
• Strammel – 1575 (red)
• Amaranth – 1550-80 (a reddish purple)
• Pink – 1522
• Maide’s Blush – 1590 (rose color)
• Ham-Color – 1550-80 (possibly the light red of ham)
• Soppes-in-Wine — 1559 (it used to be normal to put soppes, pieces of toast or stale bread, in wine, so since all wines are reds, this is probably a lightened shade of wine). (Source)

What we today might simply call “a red”, had historically many different names and therefor also possibly many different meanings simply due to who wore it and how.

Martin Luther in red

What actually inspired me to write this entire entry on the color red, was reading that Martin Luther, infamous for wearing black, personally wore a lot of red (97, Rublack). This made me rethink the symbolism of color and how red must have meant truly different things, depending on who wore it. Rublack concludes that “Luthers choice of scarlet clothing also reflects the increasing sartorial distinction that scholars had begun to raise their status”. (98, Rublack).

And when I started looking for Luther in red, I ended up it finding sneaky red garments in quite a lot of depictions of him that I had not thought about earlier:

Double Portrait of Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon (1543)

Martin Luther in the bible of Hans Plock.

Collage of reformators, 1540., from the bible of Hans Plock

Magdeburg commemoration woodcut of Martinus Lutherus (1546)

It seems Luther really did feel fly in red.

❧

I am honestly not sure if this entry made me any wiser when it comes to this alluring color, dear readers. Maybe we can come to the conclusion that the color red have and always will fascinate, be fashionable and attractive in our eyes despite the symbolism behind it or who wears it. And that the color of red historically did not come in just one shade, but in plenty.

❧

Sources

→ “Dressing Up – Cultural Identity in Renaissance Europe”, by Ulinka Rublack.
→ Fabric colors in English renaissance
→ The bible.

Suggested further reading, for the curious:

→ Secret history of red
→ Historical overview of dyes, dying and fabric colors in the renaissance

Angel of death – the stylish executioner

When we mention the medieval executioner most of us probably imagen a half naked man, hooded in a black cloak over his face and casually leaning against an enormous axe. This image is however a modern conception of the hangman of the past.

The medieval executioner was indeed fully dressed, and never hooded. He wasn’t even all dressed in black – on the contrary we see him quite colorful in many depictions. But people did fear and shun the hangman intensely. He was often a ruthless criminal who chose the role as executioner instead of the death penalty, offered to him by the state. He was also often somehow marked with cut off ears, or burn scars on the side of the face.

The fact that the modern perception of the executioner highly differ from the historical one, made me curious. Who was the early modern hangman, and more importantly – what did he look like?

The diary of an executioner

In 16th century Hof in Germany lived a man called Frantz Schmidt. More formally known as “Meister Franz”, he might be the only 16^th century executioner writing a diary during his 45 year long career of killing, punishing and handling criminals in the name of the state.

Schmidt was one of the executioners that inherited the title from his father, unlike earlier practice where the role as executioner was offered to criminals as an alternative to death penalty. Schmidt seems to have been a well mannered executioner, sought after and definitely not unlucky in love nor career:

“he married chief executioner’s daughter Maria, and eventually became chief executioner after his father-in-law. He fathered seven children, and his salary, on par with the city’s wealthiest jurists, allowed him to have a spacious residence in Nürnberg. After his retirement in 1617, he began a new, lucrative career as medical consultant.” (source)

In Schmidts diary he detailed all the punishments that he performed. He had a fruitful career where he performed according to his diary 361 executions, many finger-choppings aswell as ear-clippings:

During his entire career he flogged at least 367 offenders, usually before effecting the court’s order for their banishment from the city; many more were whipped by his assistant. He branded a large N for Nuremberg on the cheeks of four pimps and conmen, clipped the ears off four “thief-whores”, snipped off the end of one blasphemer’s tongue, and chopped off the fingers of nine prostitutes, procuresses, false gamblers, poachers and perjurers. (Source)

Despite his chopping, clipping and executing he seem to have been a fairly respected man. Even so that he could retire from his profession as hangman and instead end his life as a (surprisingly enough) healer, claiming to have treated more than 15,000 patients at the end of his life.

We have a few depictions of Frantz, and as far as we can see he was a fairly well dressed chap, and it seems his gear matched his salary:

Franz Schmidt executing Hans Fröschel on May 18, 1591.

Frantz Schmidt executing Anna Peihelsteinin for ‘harlotry and lewdness’, 1584.

Depiction attributed to Franz Schmidt, end of 16th century.

Depiction of Schmidt executing the parricide Franz Seuboldt who killed his own father by ambush while dad was setting bird traps, 1589.

The coin and dress of the hangman

The executioner was by no means a wealthy profession but he couldn’t be called poor either. He had a steady income, certain executions gave extra cash and travels, accommodation and meals during work was paid for. A diligent and ambitious hangman could amass a good coin during his career.

Another less known perk of the job was garments:

“A privilege the executioner had at the time was that he got to keep the garment of the sentenced – as long as the criminal were considered without honor or a stranger to the community. And as most sentenced to death were considered without honor, the executioner pretty much kept all the clothing he desired. This meant that the executioner in many cases could be quite well dressed, to commons folks annoyance”. (93, Sanden)

That the feared and hated executioner was allowed to dress more or less finely, wasn’t highly appreciated.  In 1603 there is a somewhat disgruntled quote on the dressing of a german executioner. That his dress “be so great that not the princely grace was worthy to shine the shoe, and that his mother shall have such stately dress and skirts that the princess herself did not have it better” (93, Sandén)

The Swedish executioner Clemet Foss was 1594 said to “be with gaudy clothes”, probably due to pickings from his victims, and well use of his incomes. When the wealthy Ulrich Schwarz, master of the carpenters guild in Augsburg and famous for his love for fancy clothes, was sentenced to death 1478 the city council “forbade the hangman to appropriate his clothing, so as not to perpetuate his memory” (86, Rublack).

I have found some claims that the executioner during medieval times dressed in certain ways. “Hangmen, in particular, were often forced to to wear striped, or strangely cut clothing and are frequently represented in this manner in crucifixion scenes or martyrical scenes” (103, Rublack).

“Die sieben Schmerzen Mariä” By Albrecht Durer, 1494-1497

However I am not sure that the strangely cut clothes in biblical scenes represent how the hangmen actually dressed, but is more of an exotic depiction of clothing. If the executioners garments in a biblical scene differ very much from common fashion during the 1500 and 1600s, it is most probably a fictional clothing style to symbolize a bygone time.

Some also claim that executioners were said to often be dressed in red (96, Sandén). But I am always suspicious of modern interpretation of color use in history. The color red is often said to be the color of devilry, or a lewd woman. But I would say that that the meaning of color differs greatly according to who wore it. Martin Luther for example, infamous for wearing black, personally wore a lot of red (97, Rublack). “Luthers choice of scarlet clothing also reflects the increasing sartorial distinction that scholars had begun to raise their status”. (98 Rublack).

In the end, the only thing we can do is to look at contemporary sources and study depictions of executioners of the time:

Execution from a french Chronicle, end of 15th century.

The execution of Robert Tresilian, as depicted in Jean Froissart’s Chroniques. 15th century

Very early 16th century, origin unknown to me

Woodcut of a decapitation, early 16th c.

Various torture and execution styles, 1509

A woodcut of Tyndale’s execution from Foxe’s Book of Martyrs (1563)

“Scharfrichter” (Executioner) from “Praxis rerum criminalium iconibus illustrata”, 1562.

Woodcut from Swiss chronicle of Johann Stumpf, 1586.

Executioner, end of 16th century

The execution of Mary Queen of Scots at Fotheringhay Castle, 8 February 1587.

❧

Sources:

• Broken by the wheel – the diary of an executioner
• “Bödlar: liv, död och skam i svenskt 1600-tal”, Anna Sunden
• “Dressing Up: Cultural Identity in Renaissance Europe”, Ulika Rublack
• “The first book of fashion”, Ulika Rublack

Suggested further reading, for the curious:

→ The Director of the Theater of Horror
→ The Journeyman
→ God’s Executioner

The 16th century cook and his attire

Everything started with me searching different depictions of the female apron during the 16^th century. And it ended up with me finding a lot of depictions of 16^th century male cooks. Why not collect these, I realized.

On these depictions we see that there is a fashionable difference between an apron for a male or a female. The male apron seem to be extremely simple – just a squared piece of linnen fastened with a knot, and quite short.

I also would like you to note that quite a few of the depictions of our culinary artists portray them with fashionable clothes – it is slashed and well fitting, many with the hypermodern “kuhmaulschuhe”, the cow mouth shoe. I would like to point out that these cooks are most probably some sort of court cooks, or working for lords with a more lavish taste in food.

Also we see quite a few not only stylish, but also hygienic, hair nets and hair gears on our male chefs.

The Cook and His Wife Albrecht Dürer (German, Nuremberg 1471–1528 Nuremberg)

German Cookbook “Kuchenmeistery”, 1485

German Cookbook “Kuchenmeistery”, 1485

“Das Buch Granatapfel im Latin Genant Malogranatus”, 1510, Hans Burgkmair I.

“Der Weisskunig” (The White King Learning to Conduct a Kitchen), 1514-1516, Burgkmair d. Ä.

From a german manuscript namned “Frau untreue” (Untrue woman). Artist unknown. Made first half of 16th century.

“Die Hausbucher der Nurnberger Zwolfbruderstiftungen”, 1527

Unknown artist and date

“Zeltlager Kaiser Karls V. vor Lauingen”, 1546.

 

Interior of an Italian kitchen, after woodcut in ‘Banchetti compositioni di Vivende’ by Christoforo di Messisburgo, published 1549

“The chief”, woodcut by Jost Amman, in the cookbook “Ein new Kochbuch” by Marx Rupolt, 1581.

From the the cookbook “Ein new Kochbuch” by Marx Rupolt, 1581.

Unknown artist and date

Unknown artist and date

 

“Baker Preparing Pies”. by Bartolomeo Passarotti (1529-1592)

I will end this little entry with a far older picture – it seems the manly square apron have been in fashion for quite some time:

Psalter. Flemish c. 1320-30.

A must see: “The high art of the low countries”

Its recommend a documentary time, again! This time i’ll recommend something that isn’t only about the 16^th century, but starts in the 15^th century. It is the wonderful art that was born in the Netherlands and Belgium during this period. I cannot stress enough how much I love the northern European renaissance – it’s love for the common man (and woman) and the artists almost alchemichal talent in using paints and colors.

The film is called “The high art of the low countries” from 2013. In the first episode of three the British art historian Andrew Graham-Dixon focuses on the 15^th and 16^th century and deeply explores the brothers van Eyck, Bruegel the elder and Peter Paul Rubens along with churches and tapestries of the time.

It’s a must see!

Reenactment: female pilgrims 16th century

Me and a friend shared a mutual interest for Northern European early 16^th century female pilgrims and decided to recreate their gear. Our inspirations are of simple female clothing during the period but also the early modern pilgrims that we found depictions of. The entire outfit is not complete yet – we want more winter wear also, and yet have to make proper bags for longer travels.

The clothes are all handsown by us, all equipment and accessories handmade by us or friends that are crafts men. Everything is in materials of the time such as wool, linnen, silk threads, leather and oak.

Our lovely hats are historically handmake by Amica at https://historicaltextiles.org/. They are based on depictions of 16^th century pilgrims.

Our lovely shoes are historically handmade by Sofia at http://historiskaskor.blogspot.se/. They are inspired from depictions of 16^th century peasant shoes and also findings from the Mary Rose.

I’m adding some of the inspirational pictures of 16^th century pilgrims that we used during the process. Depicitions of female pilgrims during the period are, as always, alot fewer:

Please visit our amazing friends at Historical Textiles and Historiska Skor!

Good riddance to bad rubbish!

The saying “good riddance”, meaning “pleasure on being rid of some annoyance – usually an individual” is a phrase most people are familiar to.

But in the 16^th century “riddance” wasn’t always of a good kind – it basically meant “deliverance from” or “getting rid of”.

A riddance can be of many kinds, it can be a “gentle riddance” as in Shakespeares “Merchant of Venice”. It was Shakespeare that first coined the combination of “riddance” and “good” as far as we know, in the line from “Troilus and Cressida” (1606):

Thersites: I will see you hanged, like clotpoles, ere I come any more to your tents: I will keep where there is wit stirring and leave the faction of fools. [Exits]

Patroclus: A good riddance!

But we find this little word in even earlier sources, in John Rastells little sarcastic love poem “Away mouring” written in 1525:

I haue her lost,
For all my cost,
Yet for all that I trowe
I haue perchaunce,
A fayre ryddaunce,
And am quyt of a shrew.

Lets just hope that the lady that Rastell is so bitter over truly was such a “fair riddance” as he’s implying.

I’ll end this little entry and conclude that the Devil himself just might sigh with relief and mumble “good riddance” as soon as he gets this angry witch of his back:

“Witch attacking the devil with a spindle”, Jakob Binck (1528)