My Novel THE LAST TAXI DRIVER Splashed Across Front Page of Le Monde's Weekly Book Review

In my wildest dreams I could never have imagined this happening. Very grateful to my French translator Nicolas Richard for landing me on the front page of Le Monde's weekly book review.

Does the 1608 Play A YORKSHIRE TRAGEDY Contain One of Shakespeare's Greatest Soliloquies?

1608 Quarto of A YORKSHIRE TRAGEDY attributed to "Shakspeare" (Wikicommons). Note the epigram of what appears to be a falcon or hawk capturing another bird in hunt above a mountainous vista. The falcon was the Stratford actor Shakspeare's symbol in his coat of arms. The name of the writer is spelled "Shakspeare," making this two direct references to the Stratford businessman and actor in the frontispiece. It is also advertised on its 1608 cover and "Not so new as Lamentable and True."

In 1608 A YORKSHIRE TRAGEDY was attributed in quarto form to "William Shakspeare" (not "Will. Shake-speare," as the name was typically spelled in print). In the years and decades that followed the play was attributed to Shakespeare (using various spellings of the name) four different times, including when it was registered for publication on May 2, 1608. It was attributed to Shakespeare a second time on the title page of the quarto that soon followed when the play was performed in the Globe. It was attributed to Shakespeare a third time when the quarto was reprinted by Thomas Pavier. And, although it was excluded from the 1623 First Folio, the play did appear in Shakespeare's Third Folio of 1664. In 1685 the play was included in the Fourth Folio. It's also of note that in its original title page the play was advertised as, "Not so new as lamentable and true."

The reason it's described as "lamentable," is that the play was apparently based on an actual murder performed by a squire of the name Walter Calverly who had been forced to marry his guardian's granddaughter.  

Stanley Wells, in his excellent Shakespeare and Co., calls the play "among the finest one-act plays in English." Wells also notes that " . . . nothing in Middleton's output to the date would have prepared one for the possibility that he could have written so powerful a tragedy in this stage of his career."

Yet today scholars assume the play was written by Thomas Middleton even though it seems to have little or nothing in common with the style in which he typically wrote at that time. And the tragedy has a lot in common with how Shakespeare wrote--or at least it does in spells and starts, which might lead a more objective mind to wonder if this play was partially written by Shakespeare and perhaps cobbled together in a way that perhaps can teach us something about Middleton and his influence on Macbeth.

I suspect Shakespeare wrote some of "A Yorkshire Tragedy" mostly because  the play contains one of my favorite Shakespearean soliloquies. The following passage is spoken by a suddenly repentant fallen earl, addressing himself as "thou confused man!" after gambling away his fortune.

The play itself would seem to have been written by at least two different hands. The one in charge of structure was subpar. But the flights of language, at their best, are genius. 

In spite of his stated belief that Middleton did not write in this style, Stanley Wells seems to believe Middleton did somehow pen the tragedy yet remains baffled by a number of problems, including the abrupt changes of tone between the first and second scene. Wells states, "The tone is relaxed, but after this the drama makes a fresh start. . . " Regarding the out-of-place opening scene, Wells speculates, "It could easily have been written after the body of the play had been composed. . . There are many signs that it represented the author very much in the process of hasty composition, writing with the source pamphlet before him, not stopping to polish his verse, and leaving decisions crucial to the play's staging to be sorted out later. I have hunch that Middleton, working with frenzied inspiration, sketched the play from the opening of what is now the second scene, found that it came out far too short for independent performance, embarked upon a process of expansion by writing an introductory scene in a more relaxed manner, decided it didn't work, and as a way of cutting his losses turned the whole play over to a printer who agreed to publish it provide he could say it was by Shakespeare." 

Whew. To this spiel of wild speculation, Wells then adds this gem: "I cannot prove this; but equally, so far as I know, no one can disprove it."

What kind of logic is being dealt to us here? Just for the record, I can speculate that Shakespeare always wrote naked while standing in front of a window and nobody can disprove that either.

So let's touch upon those Macbeth parallels. Wells notes the writing contains "speeches of rare psychological complexity" that bring to mind Macbeth and specifically "the slaughter of Lady Macduff and her children." Macbeth is at times partially attributed to Middleton due to the lifted passages from Middleton's earlier works. And there's obviously a connection between the hideous murder of the nobleman's children here and the murder to Macduff's children in Macbeth. And, once again, it's worth stating that Middleton was not a violent writer in general.

So this play, hideously violent in nature, yet at times stunningly beautiful in language, remains a mystery, one that may never be attributed correctly until we get a better idea of who or what Shakespeare really was.  

I think we can all at least agree that A Yorkshire Tragedy would seem to be a cobbled-together play, the work where occasional genius meets lackey carpenter, but had the play become as well known as Macbeth it certainly would have lifted eyebrows earlier. Did Shakespeare write passages of it? I would argue yes. Did he structure it? I would say no. My guess is that somebody with very little talent but with access to certain passages from Shakespeare cobbled this play together and used Shakespeare's feathers to beautify its nest. 

My New Novel THE LAST TAXI DRIVER Featured in Harper's Magazine April 2020 Issue

Very happy to report that Harper's magazine just (re)published the first chapter of my brand new novel THE LAST TAXI DRIVER (Tin House Books) in their April issue. Which is kinda funny because a lifetime ago I got a story published from their slush pile and made the front cover. I think that was around 1995. Or maybe it was 1895. Either way, worlds ago.

For anyone interested here is link to the chapter Harper's was kind enough to republish. Many thanks to Tin House Books and ICM for pulling off this coup.

REVIEWS FOR THE LAST TAXI DRIVER

Clockwise from upper right: French, American, UK, American (paper), and Italian editions.

 

REVIEWS FOR THE LAST TAXI DRIVER

 (TIN HOUSE BOOKS 2021)

“A wild, funny, poetic fever-dream that will change the way you think about America. Durkee is a true original—a wise and wildly talented writer who knows something profound about that special strain of American darkness that comes out of blended paucity, materialism, and addiction—but also, in the joy and honesty and wit of the prose, he offers a way out. I loved this
book and felt jangled and inspired and changed by it.” — George Saunders

Disarmingly honest and darkly comic . . . beguiling, energetic, razor sharp prose. –New York Times Book Review

One of the best novels in recent memory . . . wildly compelling . . . . a comic masterpiece.–James McElroy The Washington Examiner

Popping pills and fulminating about the dregs of society, yet incapable of not feeling compassion for the plight of his fellow bottom-feeders, Lou Bishoff represents a masterclass in characterization, a man who recalls elements of Jim Thompson, Flannery O’Connor, Barry Gifford and John Kennedy Toole.–Declan Burke The Irish Times

A remarkable one-day picaresque as we follow Lou on a marathon shift through a blasted landscape that’s part Denis Johnson–ish carnival of the wrecked, part Nietzschean Twilight of the Gods (or Twilight of the Taxicabs) . . . a comic sweetness and energy underneath that reminds one of Charles Portis . . . A dark pleasure.  —Kirkus (starred review)

Wickly funny . . . There is depression, dirt, grit, and grist aplenty, but the novel shyly displays a bruised beauty. –Jesse Davis, Memphis Flyer

The funniest writer you’ve never heard of, but that may change. His 2001 debut, Rides of the Midway, is a 1970s coming of age masterpiece . . . Now, nearly 20 years later, at last we have Durkee’s second book, his own reboot, and wow is it worth the wait . . . a future Tom Waits vehicle if there ever was one. —John Freeman, Lit Hub Executive Editor

Blotted with jet-black humor, The Last Taxi Driver (Tin House) is the lauded authors first novel in twenty years. This ride is worth the wait. —CJ Lotz, Garden & Gun Executive Editor

Delightful and surprising . . . [a] cathartic achievement. . . . Told from Lou’s perspective, it’s a casual, voice-driven read with smart intimate humor. –Sarah Webster, Chicago Review of Books

Lou Bishoff is a hero for the gig economy . . . dark but funny as hell. —Southwest Review

The potential for violence lurks on every page and erupts in assaults sadly mundane and shockingly horrific . . . In Lou, Durkee has created a fascinatingly complex character . . . Durkee tackles race and poverty, violence of many varieties, loss and longing, and the power of the imagination. Lou’s excruciating day will make readers cringe, and the recounting of his traumas is more than unsettling. This is a dark, feverish and weird tale that remains compelling throughout. –Sarah Rachel Egelman, Bookreporter

THE LAST TAXI DRIVER is a Canterbury Tales for our time . . . Decentralized, atomized, and alternately tranquilized and jacked up on cheap beer and meth, this is the world of Beckett, Godard, Robbe-Grillet . . . The Last Taxi Driver the novel is about exhaustion. Towards the end of the book, Lou wonders vaguely “if aging boxers ever reach a point in the late rounds of lost bouts in which they enjoy being hit.” When Lou says things like that, which he does increasingly, you realize he speaks for all of us the same way the singer of a blues song does.” –David Kirby, Full Stop

A step above a must-read.  –The Week

For devotees of the offbeat and grit lit writers like Larry Brown and Mary Miller. Follow the air freshener rocking back and forth, taking you under its spell, as Durkee takes you for a ride. –AV  Club

A pleasure to read . . . unadorned and direct. It’s first person Lou, explaining the North Mississippi taxi business and narrating as we ride shotgun on a long, strange shift. The novel is dark, but quite funny. Lou . . . has stories to tell, stories about albino possums, UFOs, and adolescent trauma. As the day shift turns into a night run home from Memphis, with a yellow-eyed transplant surgery escapee on board and a gun under the seat, things get … well, they get darker.  –Jim Warren, The Clarion Ledger

Lee Durkee’s Gentry is rooted firmly in our America. The novel almost makes other fiction in that Southern tradition seem frivolous by comparison . . .” –Jim Woster, Razorcake

Raunchy and sweet and, at times, psychedelic. John T. Edge writing in Garden & Gun

Lou might sometimes lack a sense of accomplishment, but Durkee’s prose never lacks purpose. Readers therefore will find plenty to appreciate in The Last Taxi Driver. –Split Rock Review

Lee Durkee’s novels draw upon his own hip but hardscrabble life, combining the working-class realism of Charles Bukowski with the counter-cultural flamboyance of Hunter S. Thompson . . . Yet somehow, the author creates such a vivid likeness of life that readers can’t help but feel uplifted. There’s beauty in the beastliness. Don’t miss this one. –Luckbox Magazine

 

The Hampton Court Portrait of Shakespeare: How an Examination of Costume Raises Questions

Above: Gustav II Adolf by unknown artist date unknown (left, Gripsholm Castle) & the Hampton Court portrait (Royal Collection, right). All images in this post are for comparison purpose and fall under Fair Use Law (see bottom of post for details). 

I've always rooted for the Hampton Court portrait of Shakespeare to be legit because I like how boisterous, affable, and regal the sitter appears. About a decade ago, following a series of emails I sent the Royal Collection, the curators there agree to X-ray their picture. I am not allowed to post the X-ray radiograph image they kindly sent me, but trust me when I say there were no smoking guns visible, although the radiograph was greatly obscured in many places due to repairs done upon the portrait's cradle and panel.

From the Royal Collection description of the portrait: "The panel is very coarsely painted and repainted, particularly to the head, to enhance the hoped-for likeness to Shakespeare . . . Tree-ring analysis, undertaken in 2010, revealed that that the oak panels on which the portrait was painted derived from the same tree, which was felled after 1616. This suggests the picture was painted sometime after 1621." 

(Note: according to Seeing Through Paintings (Kirsh & Levenson): "Dendrochronologists can determine the date of the felling of a tree but can say nothing about the time needed for dying a panel . . . art historians factor in the drying time by adding a minimum of 2 to 5 years to the felling date.") 

Acquired in 1834 as a portrait of Shakespeare from Penshurst Palace by the "sailor king" William IV, the picture was tested in 1937 with both x-ray and infra-red light by the photographic expert Charles Wisner Barrell, who later reported in the pages of Scientific American that his IR examination had detected a second collar, likely Elizabethan, hidden beneath the Jacobean fountain-fall collar visible on the portrait. (These spectral results disappeared after Barrell's death.) Barrell cited the hidden collar alongside a theory about an obscured sword of state as evidence the portrait had originally depicted Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, the man Barrell believe wrote the works of Shakespeare. 

Above: Welbeck Abbey portrait of Edward de Vere (left) & the Royal Collection's unknown Hampton Court sitter age 34 according to the inscription (right). 

Below: the Folger's Library's Halliwell Phillipps First Unique Proof of Shakespeare (left) a the Royal Collection's Hampton Court Sitter (right).

The Hampton Court's Jacobean fountain-fall collar was created using a commonly used lead-white pigment that X-rays cannot penetrate, so the hidden collar, if it exists, can only be exposed via IR examination, and indeed the X-ray result I studied with my amateur eye showed no hint of a hidden collar--nor would it. The visible collar is certainly compatible with the Royal Collection's Jacobean dating on the portrait (c. 1620-25) and likely dictated that dating (which was established before they tested the wooden panel in 2010). That said, other aspects of the sitter's costume remain vexing if we approach it as English portrait.

Smitten by confirmation bias, I had coasted along with the theory the portrait might depict Shakespeare for many years until one day I came across a portrait of Gustav the Great, king of Sweden from 1611 to 1632. In almost all his portraits, Gustav  proudly displays his royally protruding belly. Gustav's portraits typically show him belted above the belly, or directly over the belly, thereby making portraits of him a bit easier to identify. The rotund belly has long been associated with regal stature.

Above: Gustav II Adolf, c.1630 by Jacob Heinrich Elbfas (Skokloster Castle, left) & the Hampton Court Portrait of Shakespeare (Royal Collection, London, right). Note how the belt buckles, though of different sizes, are identical in shape and strapped across the upper belly.

Even if you disagree about Gustav II being the sitter of the Hampton Court picture, the many portraits of Gustav supply evidence that the Hampton Court costume is neither Elizabethan nor Jacobean. The costume likely isn't even English. The displayed belly of the Hampton Court lends the illusion of a mid 1590s English-style portrait when bombast stuffing was exposed in melancholy disarray via an unbuttoned peascod-bellied doublet, but I suspect this is not a peascod doublet in the Hampton Court picture; instead the sitter is likely wearing a farthingale-type padding that lends the illusion almost of pregnancy.

Above: Gustav II flaunting the same style vented sleeves present in the Hampton Court Portrait. These sleeves could be unbuttoned to hang behind the back. (Gustav II Adolf, 1594-1632, kung av Sverige - Nationalmuseum - 39108, photo via Wikicommons).

Above: Henry Percy, the "Wizard earl," with bombast bared in pose meant to convey melancholy. Painted by Nicholas Hilliard. Image via wikicommons.

 

 

 

 

Above: the bombastic satirist Thomas Nashe shackled by bilboes with doublet undone and bombast displayed c. 1595. Image via wikicommons.

Below are some more comparisons worth pondering.

Above: Gustavus II by Jacob Hoefnagel 1624 (Google Arts Project, left) & the Hampton Court (RC, London, right)

Above: Awesome portrait of Gustav II by Matthaeus Merian the Elder 1631-02 (Google Arts Project, left) & Hampton Court (Royal Collection, right). The portrait on the left was likely painted about four years after the Hampton Court portrait (if we accept the inscribed age of 34 as valid). Note the similar sword hilts and pommels.

Above: Gustav II Adolph date artist and date unknown (Gripsholm Castle, National Museum Sweden) & the Hampton Court portrait (Royal Collection, right)

Above: Gustav II Adolph date and artist unknown (Nationalmuseum, Gripsholm Castle) & the Hampton Court portrait (Royal Collection, right). 

 

Anyone wanting a deeper dive should follow this link to a collection of still-existing costumes once owned by Gustav II, almost all of which reveal the same style jerkin or doublet with longish tapering skirts that come together to form an arrowhead pointing directly to where, decades earlier, we would have found a codpiece. Gustav was also frequently portraited wearing vented sleeves of the type known as hanging sleeves (not to be confused with sham sleeves); this is the same style sleeve found in the Hampton Court picture.

 Below: Costumes of Gustav II displayed in the National Armory in Stockholm. The doublet immediately below is displayed one of the king's rapiers very much resembling the rapier in the Hampton Court picture.

Above: The Hampton Court portrait (Royal Collection, London) displayed beside still existing costumes of Gustav II. Please also note the resemblance of the swords in the two above image.

Anyone interested in Gustav the Great can follow this link to a page featuring an illustrated description of his life. A king who inherited three wars, all of which he fought brilliantly (he's considered one of the greatest military leaders of all time), Gustav is also credited with bringing Sweden into the modern age. He died on the battlefield while leading a charge uphill in the Thirty Days War. If the inscribed age of 34 is correct on the Hampton Court portrait, then it depicts Gustav c. 1628, which would correlate the Royal Collection's dating of the wooden panel. And since Gustav the Great was a Protestant hero, it's almost certain a portrait of him would have existed inside the Protestant stronghold of Penshurst Palace.

So here's to Sweden's Gustav the Great. Though we have lost a poet, we have gained a monarch.

Jokes aside, I don't mean to speak in absolute terms. Obviously this argument is far from over and we won't know the truth until we finally see the IR-test results of the Hampton Court. Will that ever happen? I have no idea.

Note 1: the above argument is abbreviated so as not to overlap too much with my memoir STALKING SHAKESPEARE (Scribner 2023).

Note 2: I often defend Charles Wisner Barrell in my book. I've found him to be reliable and don't mean to disparage him here. I strive very hard to be neutral on the authorship debate whenever it overlaps the portraits rumored to be Shakespeare.

Related links: How To Date Elizabethan Portraits by Costume 

NOTE: ALL IMAGES USED IN THIS POST ARE FOR COMPARISON PURPOSE AND THEREFORE FALL UNDER FAIR USE LAWS. 

 

My Final Argument that the Portrait of an Unknown Fashion Fantastico in North Carolina Depicts the Privateer Sir Thomas Cavendish

Above: Unknown Gent (left, NCMA 67.13.4) & Sir Thomas Cavendish (right, image via Alamy.com)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This distinguished-looking gent, decked out in a fabulous gold-leaf fleur-de-lis doublet, lives anonymously inside the North Carolina Museum of Art, where his keepers refer to him affectionately as "Mr. Fancy Pants." To my eye, the sitter bears an uncanny resemblance to a number of confirmed portraits of Sir Thomas Cavendish, the English privateer who claimed to have burned over a hundred Spanish ships. Cavendish, an aristocrat known as "the Navigator," was the third man to ever circumnavigate the globe. I'm convinced the portrait does depict Cavendish, and this post will attempt to present the evidence via an examination of the portrait's provenance, costume, pigments, and also the impresa (or visual riddle) posed by the enigmatic thunderstorms painted in the upper-left-hand corner.

Above: Unknown Man (North Carolina Museum of Art, left) & Sir Thomas Cavendish in 1591 by Gheeraerts the Younger (image taken for educational purposes from Ashelford's book DRESS IN THE TIME OF ELIZABETH). The painting of Cavendish is owned by the Trustees of the Will of the 8th Duke of Berkeley. Note that both men are wearing peascod doublets above the bum-rolls trunk hose that came into fashion during the 1580's.  

Below: close-up comparison between unknown gent (MCMA) and Sir Thomas Cavendish by Gheeraerts. Click on the image for a higher-resolution comparison.

 

Let's begin with a blog post provided by the North Carolina Museum of Art stating their theory that this unknown man was likely an Elizabethan privateer. Dr. Perry Hurt, one of the museum's associate conservators, noted that the portrait had been painted using actual gold and silver leaf as well as an expensive red dye called cochineal (derived from the insect of that name found in the Americas). Hunt believed these three materials were used in the portrait to reflect the Spanish booty brought home to England by the unknown privateer in the portrait. So let's begin this argument by stating that Sir Thomas Cavendish was indeed a famous privateer who specialized in plundering the Spanish of gold, silver, and cochineal prior to being lost at sea during his attempt to be the first man to circle the globe twice.

Now let's have a look in the upper-left corner at the portrait's impresa. Elizabethans loved these visual riddles, but this one seems easy to solve.

Above: detail from portrait of an unknown gent kept in the North Carolina Museum of Art.

 The device depicts a series of sinister storm clouds raining onto what appears to be a blue iris with the French motto SANS ORAGE ("without storm") sheltering the flower. I would take the meaning to be something akin to: without hardship you get no Spanish booty. But what's more important is that Cavendish had at least one other portrait of himself painted standing beneath similar storm clouds while garbed garishly in gold.

 

Above: Unknown Man (North Carolina Museum of Art  NCMA.67.13.4) & "Portrait of Sir Thomas Cavendish" by John Bettes (image from Flickr).

Below: detail of thunder storms perched over Cavendish's left shoulder.

 

More evidence the sitter is Cavendish can be found inside the museum in Raleigh, North Carolina, where the portrait now resides. The museum's collection of British portraits contains 25 pictures total. Yet four of the sitters are confirmed members of the Cavendish family. Interestingly I had no idea this was the case when I first suggested to the museum their sitter was Cavendish. It's quite the coincidence but perhaps nothing more than that, because the family that donated the known Cavendish portraits is not the same family who donated Mr. Fancy Pants. But then again perhaps there is some connection between the two families; it would be nice to know if that were the case.

A portrait of Sir Thomas Cavendish in North Carolina makes perfect sense in that he played a key role in the history of that area. The Fort Raleigh websites recalls Cavendish in this way:

Thomas Cavendish also played an important role in the expeditions know as the Roanoke Voyages. In 1585 he participated with Sir Richard Grenville in planting the Ralph Lane colony by bringing his ship Elizabeth to the area now known as North Carolina.

It seems likely the picture was painted c. 1588 when Cavendish returned to England after circumnavigating the globe. His ship Desire contained incredible wealth in its hold. He was knighted by Elizabeth I, who was so impressed with his booty she accepted his invitation to sup with him on his ship. 

An examination of the costume supports the date of c. 1588. The bombast stuffing of the mid-to-late 1580s can be seen in the sitter's bishop (or farthingale) style sleeves, in his pronounced peascod doublet, and in his upper trunk hose (the style was called a mini bum roll). There are no wings at the shoulder of the doublet, which is also consistent with c. 1588. The sitter is wearing a gorget around his neck, which was a fashionable way to let everyone know you've fought in battles, which Cavendish certainly had. The sitter is also adorned by a sash that was perhaps a favor from Queen Elizabeth (the beautiful sash is painted with real gold and silver). His hair style is consistent with c. 1588 as he is sporting the hyper popular Armada Perm just as it is giving way to the longer rock-star hair styles of the 1590's. However the fall collar of Italian cutwork seems more consistent with the 1590's. Cavendish was lost sea in 1592. His portrait by Gheeraerts the Younger was painted in 1591.

We don't know who painted the North Carolina portrait, although its hard not to suspect Gheeraerts the Younger. However the use of real gold and silver as pigments might indicate a portrait painted by Nicholas Hilliard, who was known to employ those precious metals in that way. Although Hilliard is famous for his portrait miniatures, he also painted some in-large portraits. Take all that with a grain of salt, as it is pure speculation.

The portrait of the unknown man was donated to the museum in 1967 by Mr. and Mrs. James MacLamroc, who also donated at least two other excellent portraits to the museum. One of these portraits appears, to my eye, to depict the privateer Sir Frances Drake. It's hard not to suspect a nautical theme inside the MacLamroc collection. These portraits had unfortunately been misidentified centuries earlier. The museum acknowledges the current inscription on them are incorrect. 

It's also worth mentioning that the Cavendish clan came to England from Normandy, or at least believed they did, so the French motto and embroidered fleur-de-lis might well reflect that heritage.

 

Below: comparison of left hands from the same two portraits. The hand on the right is the unknown man's. The confirm Cavendish portrait (right) is owned by the Trustees of the Will of the 8th Duke of Berkeley

Above: the portrait of Cavendish selected for David B. Quinn's book would seem to be copy of the Gheeraerts' portrait, perhaps created in the same studio, that simply substituted a different yet equally flamboyant costume onto the sitter. This portrait is owned, I believe, by the Marquess of Bath and is used here for educational purposes.

The Work of a Moment: the Mysterious Ghost Girl Portrait in the North Carolina Museum of Art

Above:detail from NCMA.67.13.6

The most curious portrait I've come across in a long time, and maybe ever, is this portrait of a long-necked Elizabethan or Jacobean ghost girl who bears a spooky resemblance to the famously long-necked and ultimately beheaded Anne Boleyn. The sitter also resembles Boleyn's daughter Queen Elizabeth I.

 

I have no idea what to make of this portrait, which resides inside a small but impressive collection of mysteriously unidentified English portraits in the North Carolina Museum of Art.

 

The portrait, and costume, seem intent on emphasizing her long neck offset with a jagged choker and a blood-red heart pendant. Combined with the thick white make-up this creates an altogether spooky effect Tim Burton would approve. Who is this ghost-girl courtier? 

Above: beautiful detail from NCMA.67.13.6

 

Detail: Unknown Woman NCMA left hand with cord-tied ring

This small collection in the North Carolina Museum of Art has some beautiful Elizabethan and Jacobean portraits. I need to visit there soon.

From the North Carolina Museum of Art website:

A Curious Portrait In Which the New Countess of Southampton Poses With a Dog That Is Wearing an Elizabethan Ruff (Ruff) Doggie Collar

Above: Portrait of Elizabeth Vernon Countess of Southampton in Her Boudoir by Unknown Artist c. 1600 (Private collection Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, Scanned from Aileen Ribeiro, image via Wikicommons)

The excellent portrait above, artist unknown, is one of my Elizabethan favorites. Elizabeth Vernon was married to the 3rd Earl of Southampton, Henry Wriothesley, who was equally fond of his own hair (see below). Although it seems likely Henry was bisexual, he and Elizabeth--to judge by their affectionate letters--enjoyed a happy marriage. Elizabeth's portrait appears to have been painted a few years before the failed Essex rebellion which landed her husband Henry in the Tower of London for years (along with his pet cat Trixie). It's likely that the portrait was made to commemorate her marriage to the earl in 1598 (in which case she is already pregnant). They were married behind Elizabeth's back. Henry then fled England and left his new wife to face the queen's wrath over their secret marriage.
   
In the portrait, Elizabeth is wearing a waistcoat decorated with flowers over a rose-colored corset and showing quite a bit of skin for an Elizabethan women. It looks to me like a detached partlet, which will cover some of that skin, is hanging from her neck ruff on the purple curtain. Her petticoat is embroidered with all sorts of plants and cool insects (insects were in fashion and were even a popular shape for brooches). But the scene is stolen in some ways by the jewelry-box still life and its pin cushion. The details shown there makes me wonder if an established miniaturist such as Hilliard or Oliver might have painted the portrait. 

A video recently popped up on my youtube that made me recall this portrait of Elizabeth Vernon in her boudoir. The video, by a contributor called Priorattire, demonstrated the step-by-step agony of dressing an Elizabethan woman endured every day (see bottom of post).

Above: bling-box detail from unknown artist's portrait of the Countess of Southampton (Private collection Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, image via Wikicommons)

Above: The inscription on the comb reads, "menez moi doucement," which means "handle/lead me gently" (Private collection Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, image via Wikicommons)

Above: stylish doggie wearing ruff collar. (Private collection Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry)

Above: 3rd Earl of Southampton c. 1593 (Cobbe Family Collection; image from wikicommons).

20 Essential Questions To Ask When Attempting To Date An Elizabethan Portrait By Costume: Men's Portraits

Horatio de Vere. Gorget on neck indicates military background. Mini-skirt-like bum roll (with only minimal stuffing) and attached canion leggings. Cuffs. Pronounced peascod bulge to doublet (turned inward, a downward hook). Padded Bishop sleeves. Falling linen band collar with open V neck. Jerkin skirt medium. Hair short. (See correct date of portrait at end of post.*) Artist is George Glower (Royal Armouries, Tower of London, image via wikicommons).

Below are 20 question that should help you date any Elizabethan portrait of a male courtier. 

Two recommended links for further delving:
--The Essential Glossary of Elizabethan Costume
--A More Extensive Guide to Dating Elizabethan Portraits By Costume: the Men

THE 20 QUESTIONS:
1. Is the sitter wearing a standing collar hugging the neck (up to the ear at times) that supports an open-at-front neck ruff? Maximum collar height to ears was during 1560's, then 70's, kept subsiding, growing outward not upward.

2. Is he wearing cuffs or ruffles at the wrist? Cuffs came into fashion .c 1583. Ruffles all but disappeared within a few years.

Above: detail Robert Dudley by van der Muelin (Yale Center for British Arts). Standing collar peaks at ear, pickadil tabs at all hems of doublet with double row at wings, wrist ruffles, non peascod doublet with no stuffing at sleeves, small figure-of-eight neck ruff open at neck. Date revealed at bottom of post.**

3. Is there a peascod bulge to the lower doublet? Peascod style was in fashion from 1575-c. 1596. If bulge is comically pronounced, turned inward like a hook (see top photo) then it's probably early 1590's--aka "peak peascod"--especially if the doublet is paired with very short, puffy upper hose.

4. Is his hair fabulously permed? 1585-88 was the glorious Armada perm. Curled hair remained stylish into 1600's. Hair mostly short in 60's and 70's. Curly and a bit longer in the 80's. Could fall too the ears and shoulders in the 1590's onward. Short hair always remained in style as well.

5. Is he holding or wearing a gauntleted glove, meaning the kind with wide fabulously decorated wrists coverings? Gauntlets came into fashion starting c. 1590. Note: holding a gauntlet in a portrait was a pose of nobility.

6. Does his upper hose (called trunk hose) resemble a stuffed mini skirt? The  mini bum roll (see top photo) short but stuffed wide at hips and often paired with canions (tubular leggings to the knees) popular 1580's until mid 90's. 

7. Are the trunk hose a bit longer to mid-thigh and puffy? Before 1570, this popular onion-shape style of upper hose was called the kettledrum.

8. Is he wearing baggy breeches to lower thigh or knee? These "Venetians" were most popular, and at their most pear-shaped, from the 1580's through the 90's. First introduced in 1570's but at that point hugged the thigh.

Above: Martin Frobisher by Ketel (Bodleian Library). Baggy Venetian hose, picadils at skirt, wing, and collar of doublet. Standing collar with ruff. Leg-of-mutton sleeves (stuff from shoulder to elbow but taping toward wrist). Med-long doublet skirt. Wrist ruffles. See bottom of post for dating ***

9. Is he wearing thin or thick chains across his chest? Thick chains worn like jewelry throughout 1560's for both men and women. Thin chains, often combined into ropes, came into fashion in the 70's and remained popular forever.

10. Is there a pickadil series of tabs hemmed along any garment? These tabs (see Dudley and Frobisher portraits above) were used for support and decoration at the end of the sleeve, collar, or skirt. Often looped, they were very popular in 60's and 70's but not as much in the 80's onward.

11. Are there garishly large buttons on the doublet and/or doublet sleeves? These buttons were popular starting c. 1587 but only for a few years. Not a 90's thing.

Above: closed figure-of-eight ruff with large buttons. Peregrine Bertie by H. Custodis. Image from Weiss Gallery via wikicommons. Date of portrait revealed at bottom of post.****

12. Are the sleeves padded from upper shoulder all the way to wrists? Known as bishop sleeves (see top photo) they came into fashion c. 1575 until 1600. Note how whole doublet looks inflated. Very popular in 80's sometimes without wings on shoulders.

13. Are the sleeves padded only from the upper shoulder to the elbow so that the arms resemble a leg of mutton? (See photo below.) Similar to the bishop sleeves (see Frobisher portrait above) in popularity c. 1570-1600. Like all puff it peaked in the 80's.

14. Is there no padding in the sleeve? No padding was poplar 1550-70's and again in the 1590's onward. During the 90's onward fashion started to dispense with bombast padding in doublet and sleeves, and returned to the natural male form of the 1560's-70's.   

15. Is there a circular linen ruff figure-of-eight collar that encloses the entire neck? If so, it's likely mid to late 1570's to 1590's. French cartwheel atrocity ruff started early 80's. Ketel's portrait of Richard Goodrick contains earliest cartwheel I've found c. 1578.

16. Does that figure-of-eight collar have several layers, sometimes convoluted, and/or a slightly crushed-looking figure-of-eight pattern? Popular 1590 to 1620's. 

17. Is there an Italian cutwork collar shaped like a fan or shield behind the sitter's head and tilted forward by an unseen support system? Italian cutwork first became popular in 1590's. The fan-frame style called a whisk or golilla became fashionable c. 1600.

Above: Sir Thomas Overbury (but you can pretend he's Will Shakespeare if you want!) c. 1610 (Cobbe Family Collection, image via wikicommons). Fan-like Italian cutwork collar known as a "whisk" (rabato support system visible). Doublet and sleeves without padding. Hair short and brushed upward with gum.

18: Is there only a narrow falling band for a collar? Plain neck band, often turned down on shoulders, or round neck with V opening became popular c. 1585-1620, but falling bands are always present in Elizabethan fashion. Often layered with transparent upper one 1590's-1600's.

19. Is the doublet skirt narrow, a mere border? This style was popular between 1575-85.

20. Does he look like an inflated and vainglorious popinjay? 1580's were the decade of bombast stuffing and of the most asinine fashion--most of it imported from France. 90's onward a reaction against 80's back to human form of 60's and 70's with no or little stuffing. 

Final exam:

Above: called Martin Frobisher, explorer, after Custodis. (Dulwich Picture Gallery, image via wikicommons.) Portrait date below *****

Portrait dates:
* portrait of Horatio Vere 1594.
** portrait of Dudley c.
***portrait Frobisher 1577 
**** portrait of Bertie 1588-90.
*****portrait of Frobisher c. 1590.
Sources consulted: 
--DRESS IN THE ELIZABETHAN AGE (BT Batsford Ltd) by Jane Ashelford
--FASHION IN THE TIME OF WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE (Shire Books) by Sarah Jane Downing
--HANDBOOK OF ENGLISH COSTUME IN THE 16^THCENTURY (Plays Inc) by W. and P. Cunnington