1680 Picture questions.

[Henry Mc]

Hi all

Hope I'm not straying too far here, but I have a few queries about this painting that some of our resident experts here might be able to solve. Its by artist John Michael Wright (1617-1694), Title Sir Neil O'Neill, Date 1680.

Sir Neil is dressed as a Gaelic lord of times gone by, well the last century (16th) anyway. My questions are legion but I'll try and narrow them down a bit.

1. Neil and his manservant seem to be sporting sporrans of a sort, do you agree they are sporrans or what do you think they are?
2. The servant wears his brát very plaid-like (I know, humour me) it looks to me like it could even be a tartan plaid (looks like a green and black tartan) although its not too clear, what do you reckon?

Any comments or suggestions particularly about the 'sporran' would be great!

[Jock Scot]

Well my eyes are not as sharp as they might be, but I cannot see a sporran on either subject. What I can see, I think, is some sort of tassel hanging from the belt of the fellow in the foreground. As to the "plaid", the subjects are depicted as being out doors and it would be expected that they would be dressed accordingly. No Gortex in those days! So using a length of woven wool as protection makes sense. I am no expert here, but green and black dies would have been available so a weaver could easily produce a simple patterned cloth, however I doubt that the idea of a tartan as such would have entered any one's head in those days. Well you did ask!

[Henry Mc]

Well my eyes are not as sharp as they might be, but I cannot see a sporran on either subjects. What I can see, I think, is some sort of tassel hanging from the belt of the fellow in the foreground. As to the "plaid", the subjects are depicted as being out doors and it would be expected that they would be dressed accordingly. No Gortex in those days! So using a length of woven wool as protection makes sense. I am no expert here, but green and black dies would have been available so a weaver could easily produce a simple patterned cloth, however I doubt that the idea of a tartan as such would have entered any one's head in those days. Well you did ask!

Thanks jc, but you'll notice behind the tassel there is a sub-triangular piece of cloth, the tassels could be the 'purse strings' of the triangular sporran!

The servant also seems to have a similar 'sporran' or at least the same tassels so there is some kind of fashion statement (!) or whatever going on.

[Jock Scot]

Well of course you may be right. I have to say I thought the triangular whatsits were "modesty protectors".

[Dale-of-Cedars]

Personally I find the Japanese Kozane Do-Maru armour with a set of greaves, lying in the lower left, very interesting. And just to circle back to the topic at hand, the lower panels of that style of armour gave the samauri warrior a kilted appearance.

"At Sir Neil's feet, lower left, lies a closely observed, though incomplete, suit of Japanese armour. Its presence is a puzzle, for although Japan had been closed to Westerners since the 1620s, John Michael Wright clearly must have had access to such armour. It is of a style called 'Do-Maru', meaning 'round the body'; worn during the period c.1350-1530, it was of a type kept as gifts for eminent people."
http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/...-oneill-t00132

[Chas]

This is a link to a better image -



I don't think those are sporrans.

Regards

Chas

[Henry Mc]

Personally I find the Japanese Kozane Do-Maru armour with a set of greaves, lying in the lower left, very interesting. And just to circle back to the topic at hand, the lower panels of that style of armour gave the samauri warrior a kilted appearance.

"At Sir Neil's feet, lower left, lies a closely observed, though incomplete, suit of Japanese armour. Its presence is a puzzle, for although Japan had been closed to Westerners since the 1620s, John Michael Wright clearly must have had access to such armour. It is of a style called 'Do-Maru', meaning 'round the body'; worn during the period c.1350-1530, it was of a type kept as gifts for eminent people."
http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/...-oneill-t00132

I heard an explanation for this.

Seemingly at the time anything Japanese was shorthand for the irreligious/heathen etc, therefore he was lording it over the heathens in a similar way to the way in medieval art the hero would stand on a dragon/snake or whatever.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Yes, that's a purse hanging from O'Neill's belt. As to O'Neill's costume, there is some controversy as to whether or not Irish Chiefs in the late 17th century actually dressed in this manner (unlike the portrait of Mungo Murray, also painted by Wright in Dublin at about the same time). It has been suggested that O'Niell's coustume was based on descriptions of the mode of dress worn by chiefs during the Tudor/Elizabethan era. The argument in support of this theory is that a pre-reformation style of dress was chosen to re-enforce the strong Roman Catholic faith of O'Neill; indeed, the entire picture seems to suggest a strong anti-reformation theme: O'Neill is armed with a dart, a traditional Irish weapon; behind him a servant holding many darts, indicative of the willingness of the Irish to defend their faith. O'Neill is standing over a suit of Japanese armour-- at that time the Japanese were persecuting Catholics in the most horrific manner and even Protestant Europeans where shocked at the Japanese behavior-- again alluding to defeating the oppressors of the Roman Catholic faith.

Now, because of the controversy over the exact manner in which late 17th century Irish chiefs may have dressed, I don't think that one can say with absolute accuracy that the purse in the picture is a sporran, at least in the sense that we here on XMTS would accept or understand that word. If O'Neill's costume was created for the picture then the purse/sporran could be nothing more than a fanciful prop created by the painter to give balance to the picture. The truth is, we just don't know for certain.

What is useful is that this picture clearly shows that while the Scots did wear kilts in the 1680s, clearly the Irish did not.

[Jock Scot]

MoR.

I saw the Japanese style armour in the picture and did wonder at the significance of it. Thank you for explaining it. I had no idea.

[Henry Mc]

Yes, that's a purse hanging from O'Neill's belt. As to O'Neill's costume, there is some controversy as to whether or not Irish Chiefs in the late 17th century actually dressed in this manner (unlike the portrait of Mungo Murray, also painted by Wright in Dublin at about the same time). It has been suggested that O'Niell's coustume was based on descriptions of the mode of dress worn by chiefs during the Tudor/Elizabethan era. The argument in support of this theory is that a pre-reformation style of dress was chosen to re-enforce the strong Roman Catholic faith of O'Neill; indeed, the entire picture seems to suggest a strong anti-reformation theme: O'Neill is armed with a dart, a traditional Irish weapon; behind him a servant holding many darts, indicative of the willingness of the Irish to defend their faith. O'Neill is standing over a suit of Japanese armour-- at that time the Japanese were persecuting Catholics in the most horrific manner and even Protestant Europeans where shocked at the Japanese behavior-- again alluding to defeating the oppressors of the Roman Catholic faith.

Now, because of the controversy over the exact manner in which late 17th century Irish chiefs may have dressed, I don't think that one can say with absolute accuracy that the purse in the picture is a sporran, at least in the sense that we here on XMTS would accept or understand that word. If O'Neill's costume was created for the picture then the purse/sporran could be nothing more than a fanciful prop created by the painter to give balance to the picture. The truth is, we just don't know for certain.

What is useful is that this picture clearly shows that while the Scots did wear kilts in the 1680s, clearly the Irish did not.

I stated in the OP that O'Neill was portraying an Irish lord of a century earlier. By the late 17th century the Irish aristocracy had adopted English fashions.

Interesting that you reckon it is a 'purse'...what is the significant difference between a purse hanging from his belt and a sporran doing the same?

Interesting as well about the dart and its significance as an 'Irish' weapon...not something that would be widely known today...