Dorothy Bonham

And an unknown boy, painted by an unknown artist around 1638-41. Dorothy, or more correctly Dame Dorothy may or may not have been Lady in Waiting to Elizabeth I in her youth and was also rumoured to have played a part in foiling the Gunpowder Plot, though later investigation revealed that her part was choosing the story as the subject of a tapestry that she made after the event! Dorothy died in 1641 apparently from being pricked by an infected needle (though this may have been fabricated too to attract visitors to the Hall) shortly after this portrait was completed. A popular story has her body walled up and her ghost walking the corridors of Ightham Mote. Sadly also not true, the grand Dame was safely interred in the local churchyard, but why let the facts get in the way of a cracking story?

Anyway, this picture caught my eye because Dorothy is not dressed in the latest fashion unlike the rather sad little boy in pink stood next to her. She is wearing a black petticoat and bodice over which she seems to have a red partlet or (perhaps a sleeveless waistcoat) covering her body and a large starched ruff around her neck. She’s keeping her head warm with a black hood and possibly a lace coif underneath. The boy is in a fashionable pink suit; matching doublet (slashed sleeves to show his shirt), breeches (trimmed with ribbon) and short cloak with a laced linen falling band and cuffs with matching ribbons on his shoes and pink hose.

Dorothy was some looker, forty years earlier. Both paintings are at Ightham Mote House  in Kent.

M

A catalogue of the several sects and opinions in England (Part 2)

Continuing the pictures from the broadsheet from 1646/7, Here are three more.

 

The Arminian. Arminiansim was founded in the Low Countries and was based on the belief that every man had the free will to achieve his own salvation, and that it wasn’t predestined which way you would go after death as a lot of Independants believed. This chap is clothed in a gown over his clerical cassock (note the waist tie) with a wide brimmed hat and a ruff.

 

 

 

Would any comfortlesse both live and die?
Let him learne free wills great uncertaintie:
Salvation that doth unmov’d remaine,
Arminian Logick would most maintaine,
And faith that’s founded on a firme decree,
Is plac’t by them to cause uncertaintie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Arian. Arianism was an ancient belief that had been recently resurrected and concerned the relationship between God the Father and Jesus. A tricky one to explain, but indicative of the confusion of the times that some people were going back to the early days of Christianity for their beliefs. This chap is wearing a smart, short (or jump) coat over his doublet, a narrow brimmed hat and falling band.

 

What they dare to deny, Christians know,
Christ God and Man, from whom their comforts flow,
‘Tis sad, that Christians dive by speculation,
Whereby they loose more sweeter contemplation:
Where Christian practice acts the life of grace,
There’s sweet content to run in such a race.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Adamite. As the name would suggest, these people wanted to go right back to the Garden of Eden, and professed to have regained the innocence of Adam by taking their clothes off. It was another throwback to the early days of Christianity and predated the 1960s by a considerable margin. Sadly there are no costume details here. This chap is wearing nothing but a smile.

 

Hath Adams sin procur’d his naked shame,
With leaves at first that thought to hide his staine?
Then let not Adamites in secret dare
Aparent sinfull acts to spread; but feare,
Since Adams sin hath so defil’d poore dust,
Cast from this Paradise by wicked lust.

Popular Errours

Or the errours of the people in physick, first written in Latine by the learned physitian James Primrose Doctor in Physick. The Latin version was published in 1638, but the English translation came out in 1651 and featured this image. It was a defence of the arts of the learned physician against quack and untrained doctors written in an entertaining style, presumably so that he could reach the largest audience possible.

The picture shows a poor fellow in his sick bed, being ministered to by a doctor, but also a well meaning goodwife who is trying to help but is being restrained by an angel of mercy. She is wearing a petticoat, waistcoat, long apron, ruff collar and a wide brimmed hat over a linen coif. The doctor in a gown, cap and ruff and the ill fellow in his shirt and night cap.

Here is a closer image of the woman. I’m still not completely sure what she is wearing on her upper half. Perhaps her apron reaches to her chin and she has tucked it under her stiffened bodies? There is a lovely poem on the facing page which represents the busy body trying to take over:

Loe here a woman comes in charitie
To see the sicke, and brings her remedie.
You’ve got some grievous cold, alas! (quoth she)
It lies sore in your bones, no part is free.
His pulse is weake, his vrine’s colour’d high,
His nose is sharpe, his nostrills wide, he’le die.
They talke of Rubarb, Sene, and Agaricke,
Of Cassia, Tamarinds, and many a tricke,
Tush, give the Doctors leave to talk, I’ve brought
A pepper posset, nothing can be bought
Like this i’th ‘Pothecaries shoppe; alone
It cures the Fever, Strangury, and Stone;
If not there’s danger, yet before all faile,
Ile have a Cawdle for you, or Mace-ale:
And Ile prepare my Antimoniall Cuppe
To cure your Maladie, one little suppe
Will doe more good, and is of more desert
Then all Hippocrates, or Galens Art.
But loe an Angell gently puts her backe,
Lest such erroneous course the sicke doe wracke,
Leads the Physitian, and guides his hand,
Approves his Art, and what he doth must stand.
Tis Art that God allowes, by him ’tis blest
To cure diseases, leave then all the rest. 

The manner and form of the Arch-bishops Tryal in the House of Peers

An engraving appended to the end of A breviate of the life, of VVilliam Laud Arch-Bishop of Canterbury: extracted (for the most part) verbatim, out of his owne diary, and other writings, under his owne hand. / Collected and published at the speciall instance of sundry honourable persons, as a necessary prologue to the history of his tryall, for which the criminal part of his life, is specially reserved by William Prynne of Lincolnes Inne, Esquier, published in 1644. The engraving is by Wenceslaus Hollar.

As ever though, the best part of these crowd engravings is the little details that come out when you zoom in.

 

 

At the back of the hall, in the foreground an splendid selection of coats and cloaks, showing the reverse side that you don’t often get in portraits. One or two caps being worn too and a dog seems to have sneaked in on the left hand side.

 

 

An annotated group here. A marks the Archbishop in his gown and a black day cap. Unusual not to see him in his bishop’s robes, the rocket with white sleeves would have stood out had he been wearing it. B is black rod, C the Lieutenant of the Tower, D the council for Laud and E the clark who reads the evidence, looking very pleased with himself in a short cloak and laced band. F is a table.

 

 

 

A small group of women here against the tapestried wall on the right hand side. G is the area reserved for members of the Commons, H is Henry Burton who had had his ears removed for criticising Laud in a pamphlet. Henry looks like he might be wearing a ruff. I marks various witnesses, one of whom was  Susannah Bastwick, smartly attired in linen kerchief and a coif. Susannah was the wife of John Bastwick who had also lost his ears in the pillory.

 

 

 

A New Play

called Canterburie His Change of Diot. Which sheweth variety of wit and mirth : privately acted neare the Palace-yard at Westminster….Anon  (well it would be wouldn’t it?) 1641

Not so much a play, more a short series of sketches which probably lasted no more than five minutes, this is a scurrilous portrait and morality tale of Archbishop Laud in four acts. There are three illustrations that go with the text.

Act 1, the Bishop of Canterbury having a variety of dainties, is not satisfied till he be fed with tippets of mens ears. Enter the Bishop of Canterbury, and with him a Doctor of Physicke, a Lawyer and a Divine; who being set down, they bring him variety of Dishes to his Table…He knocking there enter divers Bishops with muskets on their necks, bandeleeres and swords by their sides.

Here is the jolly crew around the table. Archbish second on the left, I assume the  divine next with the ruff and the lawyer seated to his left. I think the doctor is standing far left, but he also looks like a serving man in doublet and breeches. A doctor ought to be wearing a gown. The  two bishops on the right have the aforementioned muskets and bandoliers.

 

 

Act 2, he hath his nose held to the Grinde-stone. Enter the Bishop of Canterbury into a Carpenters yard by the water side, where he is going to take water, and seeing a Grindle-stone, draweth his knife, and goeth thither to whet it, and the Carpenter follows him.

This is in retaliation for the cutting off of the ears in act one it would seem. The Carpenter is in doublet and breeches with a small brimmed hat and wide linen band. The boy turning the wheel is dressed similarly, though it would seem he has the short “roundhead” hair cut of an apprentice and is also wearing a short apron.

 

 

Act 3 he is put into a bird Cage with the Confessor. Enter the Bishop of Canterbury, and the Jesuit in a great Bird Cage together and a fool standing by, and laughing at them, Ha ha, ha, he, who is the fool now.

Here they are in the cage, the fool on the right is wearing the standard cap with bells and a cloak over doublet and breeches.

 

Act 4 The Jester tells the King the Story.

Sadly no pictures!

 

 

Family Portrait

This picture came up for sale at Christies in London in 2011, and is described as “Family portrait, small three-quarter-length, in black, red and white dress”. It has scant provenance, and in fact is inscribed on the frame with a story of how it turned up: ‘This oil painting washed ashore at Rottingdean with other wreckage from the Australian ship “Simla”,: Run down by the ship City of Lucknow, Feb 25th 1884’. It’s a lovely picture of a typical family from the seventeenth century and has the look of those Dutch master paintings of ordinary folk that hardly ever turn up in portraits by English artists

The people in the picture are dressed in clothes that place the time of the picture in the 1640s or thereabouts, and seem to be as described, a family group. They mostly look at us from the picture, though the three figures on the right look across the picture at the eldest member of the family.  He is presumably the grandfather of the family and is dressed in a gown and ruff collar with a lace edged day cap. The husband and wife (I imagine) are in their best blacks. The wife with a neat plain layered kerchief and a black hood over hers (perhaps this refers to a lost child), whilst the man of the house is in a plain black doublet and a neat falling band. If you look closely though, he has left the lower buttons unfastened so you can see his shirt. The three children are all dressed in petticoats and aprons and there is no way to tell if they are boys or girls from what they are wearing. The seventh figure  is partly hidden by an open door and seems to be wearing a red waistcoat over petticoat skirts and an apron and kerchief.

Cornelianum Dolium

or Cornelius’s Tub, a comedy performed entirely in Latin from Cambridge and possibly written by Thomas Randolph in 1638. The subject was the quest for a cure for syphilis and the frontispiece by William Marshall shows Cornelius our hero in a sweating tub (which was one of the more popular treatments) being observed by three ladies, presumably his previous conquests. He is clad just in his drawers, and a speech bubble coming out of his mouth reads “Farewell O Venus and Cupids”, whilst the caption on the tub reads: “I sit on the throne of Venus, I suffer in the tub” The ladies are high class, dressed hair and fashionable bodices. The right hand Cupid has a collar ruff rather too, not necessarily a common item of neckwear for the period. Notice also the selection of instruments on the table.

See Heer Malignants Foolerie

retorted on them properly. Satirical pamphlet from 1642 showing Archbishop Laud as a closet catholic. There are three figures shown in the picture increasing in their obvious Catholicism as you look from left to right.  As the title says:

The Sound-Head, Round-Head, Rattle-Head, well plac’d where best is merited

The left hand figure is an independant cleric, dressed in his gown over a doublet with some nice long buttons, a wide brimmed hat and a ruff.

The text underneath reads:

This foolish world is full of foul mistakes

Calls virtue, vice, & Goodnes, Badnes makes

The Orthodox, Sound and Religious Man

Atheists call Round-Head (late) a Puritan

Because Hee (roundly) Rattle-Heads, Truth’s foes

Plainly depaints, As this next figure showes

The next figure in the centre on one side represents Archbishop Laud in his bishop’s rochet (the bishop’s surplice), chimere (the black gown) and square cap, and on the right a catholic priest in cassock and biretta. It’s thought that he is supposed to be Robert Philips who was the Queen’s confessor who had been locked in the Tower for refusing to swear on a “heretical” English bible.

This time the text reads:

See heer, the Rattle-Head’s most Rotten-Heart,

Acting the Atheists or Arminians part;

Under One Cater-cap a Ianus-face,

Rejecting Truth a Crucifixe t’embrace

Thus Linsey-Wolsie, Priestly-Prelates vile,

With Romish-rubbish did men’s Soules beguile

At the bottom, the details of the shoes are nice too. The puritan has the widest side openings though.

The True Manner of the Sitting of the lords and Commons

of both Howses of Parliament upon the tryal of Thomas Earle of Strafford, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Etching by Hollar published together with the picture of the subsequent execution in 1641. I’ve already blogged here about the second picture which shows many more common folk in the crowd that gathered, but here are the great and the good of the land in 1641 gathered for the show trial. As ever in these images it’s the details that add to our knowledge.

 

 

 

Here is the good Earl (letter V) in a cloak and daycap with his falling band pulled out to cover his shoulders. This is a common fashion, notice most of the assembly wear their collars in the same fashion, though you don’t often see the reverse view. There are a few caps sprinkled about in the throng but most are bareheaded, much in the fashion recommended for church attendees, only the old and infirm were allowed caps during prayers.

 

 

 

 

This little group foreground right are the plaintiffs, all in cloaks with falling bands visible as before. You can see the construction of the crowns of two of the caps too, some of which are also edged with lace.

 

 

 

The main body of the commons, most have their cloaks gathered about them. It must have been cold in the hall during the trial. A few glimpses of doublets are visible below the cloaks as are one or two round collars which I guess are ruffs. There were worn during this period by the older generation and professional men. Also spot the guy in the middle taking notes.

 

 

 

Here the judges and barons and the Lord High Steward the Earl of Arundel who is still wearing his hat as are the two front rows below the rostra on either side. Maybe they were permitted hats as they didn’t actually block anyone’s view where they were sitting?

 

Richard Sibbes

The independant cleric engraved posthumously in 1635 for a publication of some of his sermons catchily entitled “Bowels Opened or A  Discovery of the Neere and deere Love, Union and Communion betwixt Christ and the Church, and consequently betwixt Him and every beleeving soule.” His objection to the surplice, signing the cross in baptism and kneeling in church puts him firmly in the puritan category, but he stayed resolutely within the established church, something I suspect might not have proved possible had he lived to see the civil war.

Sibbes is wearing a gown over what is probably a cassock with an elaborate collar ruff and a black day cap edged with lace, perhaps showing his tendencies in his dress, the austere preaching gown for the independents and the lace edging for the established church, though the canons prescribing outdoor wear for clergy specified plain caps only!