OK let's keep talking about Anne More

Date: Mon Jun 13 1:55 AM, 2005

OK let's keep talking about Anne More

Date: Mon Jun 13 12:57 PM, 2005

Dennis,

Your topic is still open, it's just on page 2. Once you're on the online forum page, look at the bottom rt. and there is a box for page #. I only discoved it because I was following all the posts and could'nt believe the topic was closed... Check page 2 because there might be new posts there.

Colleen

Date: Mon Jun 13 1:08 PM, 2005

Dennis,

sorry to be slow in replying. I lost the picture, having downloaded it.

I certainly hope you are right, and I agree that the ring probably commemorates a marriage in 1602, but as the V&A description says, the sitter is on the face of it more likely to be the wife of a tradesman than daughter of a very wealthy gent. The motto Videtur et Vere est: I don't know if there's a connection with the More or Donne families? If anything, it might point to one of the Veres, who did pun on the name, though I can't remember how. The date: as far as I know, nobody has done any research on whether Hilliard used Lady Day as the start of the year. Anyway, you cd still argue that the miniature was painted after the decree legalising the marriage in April 1602. But Donne was heavily in debt by then, and Hilliard charged £3 for a miniature, quite a large sum for a man in Donne's position. Unless he blew part of the £100 from Egerton in July? It wd be good to hear that there was more to it than date and ring?

Tom

Date: Tue Jun 14 2:48 AM, 2005

Thanks Colleen. I'll follow your instructions.

--DF

Date: Tue Jun 14 2:59 AM, 2005

Hello Tom. Great to hear from you! I'm in an airport just now, so a more complete response to your excellent points will have to wait for a bit.

But "tradesman"? I don't think so, especially not by Hilliard, if this is really a Hilliard. Depends what you mean by "tradesman" of course, but the point is no one, not even Roy Strong as far as I know, has yet identified a subject of a miniature without some sort of court connection.

The sitter here seems to be wearing some items of clothing suggesting that she might well reside at, for example, Sir George More's house in Blackfriars. Or am I missing something?

--D

Date: Thu Jun 16 5:15 AM, 2005

Hello Tom. I'm home now, so let's resume. I too would be glad to hear there was more to it than the date and ring. And I think there is. But maybe you move on too quickly, having underestimated what the date and ring alone can tell us. And then there is also the motto, as you say.

The Vere family is an interesting suggestion. I don't know of a situation there that involved a marriage that could be described as suspended in any sense. Do you?

You are right of course about the date, so that (assuming the painter—Hilliard if it was Hilliard—used conventional dating) we can date the start or the finishing of this portrait miniature (if it is Anne) between 25 March and 27 April 1602, which was the date of the decree validating the marriage and thus taking it out of suspension. I don't see why we should think that the miniature was painted after the decree, since it would then no longer make sense as a statement about the marriage's suspension.

The money you say Hilliard would have charged would come to something just under $400 in today's dollars, I think. We know very little about Donne's financial situation in this period. He speaks in a letter of 1 March 1602 of having "already" spent £40 in paying the costs of his and the Brooke brothers' imprisonments, as if he expected to have to pay more. Why would £3 seem excessive in this context? When you say he was heavily in debt, what evidence are you thinking of?

As I've said here, I think the July money is too late to be a factor. In any case, I'm not at all convinced, as I've said elsewhere in this forum, that Donne was necessarily responsible in any way for the financing of this. She may well have had £3 of her own.

There's much more to talk about here, so don't despair yet that the date, the ring, and the motto leave us too little to go on.

--D

Date: Sun Jun 19 5:35 PM, 2005

Having followed all the posts, I feel compelled to speak up…

Brass tacks

There is a span of approximately 4 months where Donne and More are apart from each other after taking their secret vows. The first couple of months of marriage are spent apart but in secret. Let’s refer to this as the elopement phase. When their marriage is made public, they are still physically separated from each other but the future of their marriage is clearly in question. There is some question as to the “validity” of their marriage; there’s a suggestion that Anne’s father is attempting to have the marriage annulled due to the fact that there is a breach of canon law. This juncture in their marriage history seems most precarious? It isn’t until the end of April 1602 that the final judgment on marriage is documented.

Given what we know of Donne and More’s marriage history, the pertinent year of 1602, the image of a suspended ring and the phrase Videtur et vere est, I think Dennis has a legitimate and compelling argument for insisting the miniature is Anne More Donne. There is certainly enough time to produce a portrait miniature, as well as, a motive.

What about portraiture? "The portrait is the skinny"

Dennis, you describe the quality of portraiture as, “mysteriously constructed to signify certain things about the sitter and the sitter’s situation in life at a point in time,” yet this portrait is also precious. Let’s expand the quality of portraiture and its significance by looking at the implications of the miniature. The miniature, unlike other portraiture, provides a unique purpose. The humble scale of a miniature can be held in ones hand or kept in ones breast pocket; a continual reminder of a loved one in their absence. The miniature has the ability to occupy the very intimate space of the bearer, which other types of portraiture cannot share. The miniature is “sentimental” by nature and holds a different kind of value.

Making a case

If the miniature is Anne More Donne, then I can imagine two scenarios for its commission. Either the portrait was commissioned during the elopement phase of Donne and More’s marriage or shortly after the marriage was made public. In either scenario, I can't help but think that More acted alone in its procurement. Aside from having means to support such an endeavor, Anne’s situation in life is certainly credit to her having conceived such a notion.

The elopement phase of Donne and More’s marriage is suspect for the inception of the portrait because the marriage is in a state of "limbo," if you will. As you said Dennis, “the ring is suspended,” and by no more than a string! There is no question that Donne and More are married to each other; however, marriage is more than the commitment between two people, it is a social construct and therefore isn’t considered “legitimate” without familial/public support. In this sense, the marriage isn’t “official” and the marriage is suspended. In other words, it is left hanging. This stage of their marriage supports the year and symbolism of the portrait but I don't see a strong case for producing something as precious as a miniature at this stage of the drama.

On the other hand, if the miniature was commissioned during the very public phase of Donne and More's seperation, which I suspect it was, then the sentiment of the portrait as “miniature” has a very different meaning and motivation. The marriage is “suspended” but does that mean permanently “suspended” as in dismissed? Maybe Anne’s greatest fear was that the marriage would be annulled. A portrait miniature could serve as a way of immortalizing the moment in the event the marriage was not to be? Maybe she was preparing the portrait as a keepsake and she wanted to say in a portrait, what Donne would say many years later in one of his Elegies:

Here take my picture; though I bid farewell;

Thine in my heart, where my soule dwels, shall dwell.

If this be the case, then I suspect the miniature was never given to Donne because the marriage was not dismissed and the sentiment was no longer appropriate. Maybe Anne sold the miniature and that’s why it is hanging in the V&A Museum, “sitter unknown.”

Whatever the case, I think “it seems and truly is.”

Very exciting stuff Dennis!!!!!

One last comment, I don’t know if anybody noticed this but the“V” in Videtur starts its italic with what looks like - infinity.

Date: Mon Jun 20 8:30 AM, 2005

Thanks for really looking at the fish, Colleen, and also for your careful attention to the details of the situation Anne More Donne faced in 1602.

In fact, I can hardly add anything to what you've said, it so aptly expresses my own thinking.

I too am much more inclined to think this portrait stems from the public separation and testing of the marriage at law.

What you say about the precious, intimate, and sentimental quality of the miniature is very true. In fact, until I held one of these in my hands, I personally did not have the imagination to really feel these qualities of the objects. You are especially clear in your statement, "The miniature has the ability to occupy the very intimate space of the bearer." This cannot be over-emphasized. The miniature can be carried secretly on one's person. In a private place, the "bearer" can study one of these in isolated devotion.

I also agree that most likely it was Anne herself who "conceived such a notion" and carried it through herself, with the help of the artist, who I am inclined to think was not Hilliard but Oliver.

I also agree that "Anne's greatest fear was that the marriage would be annulled." I never thought of your suspicion that "the miniature was never given to Donne because the marriage was not dismissed and the sentiment was no longer appropriate." During the period when the marriage was still in suspension, when they were forcibly separated, and especially when Donne had been fired and imprisoned, the sentiment would have been vitally appropriate for Anne to communicate to him. And with lightning speed if possible. It is true, however, that had the wedding been adjudged invalid (something John and Anne I think were virtually certain would not occur), the portrait would have been a tragic keepsake. In any case, I don't see either of them selling the miniature under any circumstances.

Finally, I like your conjecture about the infinity in Videtur.

Thanks again. You're good!

--D

Date: Tue Jun 21 11:38 AM, 2005

Dennis,

I'm clearly enthusiastic about the miniature and the mystery behind its inception; you can be in no doubt of that! I feel as if I’ve been given an opportunity to look through a looking glass and get a glimpse of something I’m not suppose to see or know. It’s like having privileged information; it makes me smile. Thank you for sharing it on this forum; it’s very generous of you.

How did you ever put it together or “conceive such a notion?” You said you’ve been looking at the portrait above 10 years. I’m really curious about the moments leading up to your resolution? Can you describe it? I’m ashamed to admit I was highly suspect. I initially thought the ring was a monocle or eye ring before reading up on it. Then it occurred to me the sitter was too young, aside from the fact that the monocle was fashionable much later. And look at me now; I currently stand an advocate for the cause! Go figure...It must have been “the fish.”

Getting back to the miniature…

I agree, as you said, that “during the period when the marriage was still in suspension, when they were forcibly separated, and especially when Donne had been fired and imprisoned, the sentiment would have been vitally appropriate for Anne to communicate to him. And with lightning speed if possible.” This time frame truly delineates and isolates the poetic effect the miniature embodies both as artifact and symbol. I can’t imagine a more appropriate scenario for the affect? The miniature would serve as a great comfort to Donne as a steady reminder of his beloved but more important, an expression of their mutual resolve. If the miniature was ever put into Donne’s hands, then I imagine someone secretly slipped the miniature to him while he was imprisoned? I feel certain a note would accompany it. How do you envision his reception of it?

Is there any record of a miniature or an allusion to one in Donne's will? If the miniature was in Donne's possession, you would think he would have taken care to make sure it was well placed upon his death? This accounts for my suspicion that Donne never received the miniature. I can't imagine why it would wind up in obscurity. Although, a miniature is obscure to all but the bearer; after all, these pieces weren’t created for public display. It really does make perfect sense that the sitter is unknown.

Have we fried the fish or is there more fish to fry? I already know the answer. I look forward to where this is going!

Colleen

Date: Tue Jun 21 2:18 PM, 2005

Your pleasure over this picture is certainly one of the rewards of scholarship, Colleen. I know what you mean, and I have no doubt you smile about it. I have shared this on the forum partly to give you and others the chance to smile about it. But mainly, I think it really is Anne More Donne. Please someone, deliver me from my illusion.

"Getting back to the miniature…," the notion may have been conceived while Donne was in prison, but I'm not sure that there was time to bring it into reality before he was released. Nevertheless, the thought is what counts with a gift such as this. I agree that, given practical constraints on the artist and his time available, it would be true that such a quick "time frame delineates and isolates the poetic effect the miniature embodies both as artifact and symbol." Well put.

But I have trouble enough with what I am currently envisioning and cannot begin to envision Donne's reception of the miniature. You do that.

I can't account for the fact that the miniature is not mentioned specifically in Donne's will. However, many pictures are mentioned in the will that are never at all described as to genre, subject, or placement in Donne's abode. It is also possible that Donne had disposed of it before writing his will, perhaps giving it to a family member. I don't know about this at all, of course, but simply cannot imagine he or Anne would have sold it.

Yes we will have more fish to fry, and more bones to pick, up to and including next year at Baton Rouge.

--D

Date: Sun Jan 14 4:35 AM, 2007

No Title