Raeburn Portrait & the VS "Menzies" Plate

[Domehead]

Hello Rabble,
Perhaps this has already been deduced:

Most are familiar with the Raeburn Portrait of Alistair Ranaldson MacDonell of Glengarry, c1812. The tartan rendered in the kilt & bodice is presumed the "Glengarry", although some tartanologists feel there is err in Raeburn's reconstruction, despite his attention to detail (see Donald Calder Stewart, The Setts of the Scottish Tartans, 2nd Ed. 1974, p.71)

If D. C. Stewart is to be taken credibly re: the assertion of Raeburn "carelessness", then are the cadagh in the same portrait that which was eventually codified as "Menzies" by the Sobieski Stuarts (Hay Allens) in 1842 (c1829)?

Not all of the VS tartans are spurious. The Raeburn Portrait featured an actual sitter and pre-dates production of the VS by a documented 17 years & a publication date of 30 years. The painting, with it the cadagh, is at least contemporary with the Sobiesky Stuart Bros. research (acknowledging their 16th Century claims to be indisputably false). I'm not suggesting the VS plate displayed a tartan which should be considered, through "wont & use", a Menzies tartan. I am suggesting the Sobieski Stuarts absconded with an existing sett and gave it a name.

Although there exist slight differences between that depicted by Raeburn and that rendered in the VS, if D.C. Stewart is correct, such discrepancies are accounted for by Raeburn's "carelessness":



Alistair Ranaldson MacDonell of Glengarry, c 1812 by Raeburn
www.caniwalkthere.com




The cadagh
www.caniwalkthere.com




The Original Menzies Plate from the VS
Matthew A.C. Newsome
www.newhousehighland.com

My rendered Menzies Plate using the information from Stewart & Thompson's Scotland's Forged Tartans, 1980
www.scotweb.com

What say you?

Thanks for reading and your consideration,
Ryan M. Liddell

[figheadair]

I'd never paid that much attention to the hose worn by Glengarry. You may have a point although I have to say that my initial view is that there are significant differences in the setting of the hose and the VS Menzies. I will have a look at this over the next couple of days and also compare with the various hose settings that Wilsons' wove to check any similarities as it's highly likely that they were the source of his cloth. D.C. was not without his faults, who is, and the ground work for his Setts was done in the late 1940s since when we have learnt much.

[OC Richard]

If there was carelessness involved there's a much higher probability it was on the Allen Brothers side of things rather than Raeburn's.

It's obvious to me that Raeburn is doing his best to paint what's in front of him.

Don't forget that a formal portrait like that isn't a quick impression, but one done from preparatory sketches and/or paintings, live sittings and, quite possibly, the loan to the artist of actual articles of clothing for him to paint at leisure.

The Allen Brothers, on the other hand, were decidedly slapdash and cavalier, failing to follow their own verbal descriptions on numerous tartans.

Absurd for them to take a hose pattern and turn it into a "clan tartan". They must have been really desperate for ideas, having evidently exhausted their simple two-stripe, three-stripe, and four-stripe formulas.

[Domehead]

Gentlemen,
Thanks to both of your considerations. I was thinking of each of you when developing this query. As to everyone else, feel free to jump in.

Mr. Cook, the notion of hose patterns as kilt wear is not entirely foreign, albeit not common (see the "Conchra MacRae": presumably). I'm saying that a minority of setts ascribed in the VS are remarkably similar to pre-existing setts so ascribed. At least one of their formulaic "concocted" setts - "MacLeod of Lewis" - can be linked to the Dunvegan Portrait (c1829-1835) of Norman MacLeod, featuring the tartan laden snuffbox - now a sett in its own right.

Under this threads pretense, The Sobieski Stuart's depiction of the "MacLeod of Lewis" sett would be a conflation of your theory re: Bro. Charles' redundant designs limited by early 19th Century investigative methods: no hi-res digital imagery, lack of extant specimen, not actually handling the portrait but observing from distance, etc...in essence "carelessness"

However, these types of "conclusions" are made throughout tartanology to move the discussion along thus prompting further research, if for no other reason than to prove the presumptive party (Me) wrong. And that is as it should be. In fact, I agree with your assertion that Bro. Charles' designs were limited, to say the least, despite certain palette-ability ("MacPherson Dress" appealed to Cluny). In the name of furthering their credibility in advance of their charade, why not mix in a few existing patterns?

Thanks again to both,
Ryan