Humanities desk
< May 10	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 12 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 11

Misidentification

Hello, I hope I'm posting this question in the right place. I wonder about the painting in the article of Nino, Princess of Mingrelia. A fashion analysis demonstrate that the painting is of a woman of the 1840s, since she is dressed in the 1840s fashion. However, Wikimedia commons claims that it was painted in the early 19th-century. But she is not wearing the fashion of the early 19th-century, she is dressed in the 1840s fashion, which did not exist before then. And if the painting was indeed made in the 1840s as the fashion of the painting did not exist before that, she woman is far to young to be Nino, who was in her 70s in the 1840s. There does not appear to be any sources fo the claim that the image depicts Nino. Since the chronology of the painting does not ad up, should it be removed?--Aciram (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some points:

(1) Who made this fashion analysis and where is a link to it?

(2) The term "early 19th century" is ambiguous; some people might mean by that "within the period 1800–1850, and my personal default would be the period 1800–1833. The Article claims it to date to "during her St. Petersburg years" which covers 1811–47.

(3) A garment or style that is "fashionable" in period X did not necessarily not exist before then, it may merely not have been fashionable. In this case the subject is wearing only 2 visible garments, an ermine-lined scarlet robe, appropriate for royalty and looking to me somewhat "timeless", and a fairly simple white dress. I lack the knowledge to date the latter, but I doubt that it couldn't have existed in, say, 1825 when the supposed subject would have been 53.

(4) Fashion, particularly before mass media, did not change in lockstep everywhere in the world. Our articles on fashion that you cite are doubtless not exhaustive, and the subject came from Georgia in extreme Eastern Europe, was in Saint Petersberg in Russia when (if) portrayed, and was born into royalty, all of which might result in fashion choices a little different from elsewhere.

(5) A painted portrait is not a photograph*. Painters, particularly of royalty, may wish (or be ordered) to portray the sitter flatteringly (so that they might appear younger), and may make classical or allegorical allusions by showing a non-contemporary or even imaginary dress style. (* Even photographs may be manipulated with lighting, filters and development techniques to make a sitter look rather different from their everyday appearance, but I digress.)

(6) Portraits are sometimes restored/touched up/altered some time after being painted – can we be sure this hasn't occurred here?

(7) You say "There does not appear to be any sources fo[r] the claim that the image depicts Nino." The Commons data does have a source link, though to a Georgian site which I cannot read, and moreover states that the painting is held in the Dadiani Palace Museum, Zugdidi, Georgia, who presumably would not have lent their imprimatur to an obviously erroneous item.

I'm not saying that your assessment is definitely incorrect, but it borders on Wikipedia:Original research or at least Wikipedia:Synthesis. I think we require a definite statement from a Reliable source before making amendments to the article (and Commons data). What think others? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.73.196 (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Georgian website states that the back of the canvas provided informative details identifying the subject of the portrait as Nino Bagration-Dadiani. However, there is nothing there suggesting that the painting is specifically "early 19^th century"; it is not clear where this assessment comes from. But in 1840 Nino reached the age of 68, and the woman in the portrait looks younger than that. Maybe her choice of dress while sitting for the portrait influenced the 1840s fashion; in general, the fashion of the commoners following that of royalty was more likely than royalty following the fashion of the commoners. "First half of the 19^th century" is a less disputable dating. --Lambiam 10:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formerly 87 and Lambian, it would be the fashion of the hairstyle that dates the picture. I do not know how to edit a picture but cannot that OR/unsourced "early 19th" be changed to "undated" until a source emerges? 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what reliable source are you relying on for the dating of the hairstyle depicted, and why are we so fixated on 1840? We also have articles on the 1820s and the 1830s in Western fashion, but I daresay they also do not present the full gamut of hairsyles worn in those periods, and we cannot suppose that a particular individual under no pressure of conformity (being Royal) nevertheless conformed to a general fashion of the time. Further, I note that 1820s in Western fashion#Hairstyles and headgear begins "Early in the decade, hair was parted in the center front and styled into tight curls over the temples. As the decade progressed, these curls became more elaborate and expansive." This seems to me like a good description of the hairstyle in the portrait.

From the subject's residential history only, in the absence of further hard data, the portrait could have been painted any time after 1811, when she was 39. (Posthumous portraits are sometimes painted, but I doubt this applies here.)

Lambian's suggestion of "First half of the 19^th century" conforms with the undisputable facts, but in any case, any revision of the wording would need to tale place on Commons, not on Wikipedia. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.73.196 (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The ermine-trimmed robe doesn't really tell anything about the date, but what can be seen of the white dress (a wide gently-curving neckline which is horizontal in the middle and slipping off the shoulders, also a wide upper sleeve) suggests the second half of the 1820s or the early 1830s (see File:1829-Morning-Evening-Dresses-World-of-Fashion-May.jpg). Churchh (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, are we (including Churchh and the IP above (whom I believe cannot be pinged)) now in general agreement that the assertion by Aciram that this portrait cannot be of the claimed subject (contrary to the information on the reverse of the canvas) is disproven?

If so, can we move on to whether "early 19th-century" is acceptable, or per Lambiam it should be changed to "first half of the 19th-century"?

I also propose that, when we conclude this discussion and make any amendment(s) necessary, we copy it to the Talk page of the article. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.73.196 (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather say that the claim of misidentification has not been proved, and that, in the absence of such proof, we simply go by what reliable sources, such as the article by Eka Lomidze (ref. [6]) tell us. Commons has its own rules: they do not require reliable sources or any independent evidence that an image or other file contains what it purports to contain; the author's or uploader's claims are normally accepted unless there is reason to doubt them. I have changed the suspicious dating of the painting, though, to "presumably first half of the 19th century". Every contribution posted here is subject to the CC BY-SA 3.0 License, so you do not need anyone's permission to copy it as long as the authorship remains traceable. --Lambiam 07:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of disvicarage, etc.

What is meant by the terms "disvicarage", "disrectory" and "discuracy", as found in "The Grand Junction Railway Companion to Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham" and other works? Note that hyphenated forms (e.g. "dis-vicarage") also exist. The context seems to be church of England parishes. Sources would be useful, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A dis. vicarage etc, a parish discharged from the payment of first fruits. See vicar, rector (ecclesiastical), curacy, and living (Christianity). DuncanHill (talk) 08:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: And for a reference see page 25 of The Grand Junction Railway Companion to Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham, to which I understand you have access :) DuncanHill (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Birthplace of Saussure

Ferdinand de Saussure was born in Geneva, but the article doesn't give the exact address of where he was born and grew up, nor can I find this information with a google search. Can anyone find this information? (Lame puns on his name will be terminated with extreme prejudice.) --Viennese Waltz 20:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the Maison de Saussure? DuncanHill (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly, yes, although I still can't find any confirmation that he was born or lived there. Good find, many thanks. --Viennese Waltz 20:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit Conflict] You might try contacting one or more of the most obviously relevant of the 33 museums in Geneva to see if they know for sure. (It's not clear to me from the French Wikipedia entry linked by DuncanHill whether the de Saussure family acquired that building before or after Ferdinand's birth.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.73.196 (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm on the subject, where is he buried? Both the English and French Wikipedias say that he died in Vufflens-le-Château, but give no information on his final resting place. --Viennese Waltz 21:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He was born "in Geneva, probably in her [his mother's] mother-in-law’s apartment in the mansion on the Rue de la Cité", "the principal residence of Henri, Louise, and their children was the farm at La Charniaz, across the border in the Savoy, which in 1860 was annexed by France", "They would spend time at Creux de Genthod, especially in the summer, with their grandmother Fanny, uncle Théodore, and aunt Adèle, and more rarely in Geneva, where much of the family mansion continued to be rented out for income. Henri did, however, keep an office on the first floor, below his mother’s large apartment on the second". Later "the family’s life revolved around the two great houses built by their ancestor Lullin. The mansion in the Rue de la Cité was their residence from late October to early July, while the summer months were spent at the other mansion at Creux de Genthod on the north shore of Lake Geneva". From Joseph, John E. (2012). "Part I, Chapter 4: 1857–1873". Saussure. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199695652. DuncanHill (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"the mortal remains of Ferdinand de Saussure were committed to Tomb 86 of Genthod cemetery, alongside his parents and other family members, including his uncle Théodore with his grand mayoral monument", op. cit. Part V, Chapter 19: THE END: 1911–1913. DuncanHill (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and he died in the Château de Vufflens, which was owned by a relative. He had been staying there some time while ill. DuncanHill (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Duncan, that's great. --Viennese Waltz 07:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]