Copyleft | Musings

Copyleft and Copyright is the common umbrella term to refer to whether a user or interacting user owns a piece of (usually) media/abstract concept. In the spirit of Copyleft, all of this is CC accredited material apart from this text.

Queen Anne (1685, PD) Jan van der Vaart, Willem Wissing, Scottish National Portrait Gallery

Public Domain

"The public domain is a range of creative works whose copyright has expired or was never established, as well as ideas and facts[note 1] which are ineligible for copyright. A public domain work is a work whose author has either relinquished to the public or no longer can claim control over, the distribution and usage of the work. As such, any person may manipulate, distribute, or otherwise use the work, without legal ramifications. A work in the public domain or released under a permissive license may be referred to as "copycenter"."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_content

"In the early decades of computing, particularly from the 1950s through the 1970s, software development was largely collaborative. Programs were commonly shared in source code form among academics, researchers, and corporate developers. Most companies at the time made their revenue from hardware sales, and software—including source code—was distributed freely alongside it, often as public-domain software. By the late 1960s and 1970s, a distinct software industry began to emerge. Companies started selling software as a separate product, leading to the use of restrictive licenses and technical measures—such as distributing only binary executables—to limit user access and control. This shift was driven by growing competition and the U.S. government's antitrust scrutiny of bundled software, exemplified by the 1969 antitrust case United States v. IBM. A key turning point came in 1980 when U.S. copyright law was formally extended to cover computer software. This enabled companies like IBM to further enforce closed-source distribution models. In 1983, IBM introduced its "object code only" policy, ceasing the distribution of source code for its system software. [...] The historical precursor to FOSS was the hobbyist and academic public domain software ecosystem of the 1960s to 1980s. Free and open-source operating systems such as Linux distributions and descendants of BSD are widely used, powering millions of servers, desktops, smartphones, and other devices. Free-software licenses and open-source licenses have been adopted by many software packages. Reasons for using FOSS include decreased software costs, increased security against malware, stability, privacy, opportunities for educational usage, and giving users more control over their own hardware. [...These were socially droven projects like] the GNU Project in 1983 [... where the] goal was to develop a complete Free software operating system and restore user freedom. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) was established in 1985 to support this mission. Stallman's GNU Manifesto and the Four Essential Freedoms outlined the movement's ethical stance, emphasizing user control over software. The release of the Linux kernel by Linus Torvalds in 1991, and its relicense under the GNU General Public License (GPL) in 1992, marked a major step toward a fully Free operating system. Other Free software projects like FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD also gained traction following the resolution of the USL v. BSDi lawsuit in 1993. In 1997, Eric Raymond’s essay *The Cathedral and the Bazaar* explored the development model of Free software, influencing Netscape’s decision in 1998 to release the source code for its browser suite. This code base became Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird. To broaden business adoption, a group of developers including Raymond, Bruce Perens, Tim O’Reilly, and Linus Torvalds rebranded the Free software movement as “Open Source.” The Open Source Initiative (OSI) was founded in 1998 to promote this new term and emphasize collaborative development benefits over ideology. Despite initial resistance—such as Microsoft's 2001 claim that "Open-source is an intellectual property destroyer"—FOSS eventually gained widespread acceptance in the corporate world. Companies like Red Hat proved that commercial success and Free software principles could coexist. [...] The free software movement and the open-source software movement are online social movements behind widespread production, adoption and promotion of FOSS, with the former preferring to use the equivalent term free/libre and open-source software (FLOSS). FOSS is supported by a loosely associated movement of multiple organizations, foundations, communities and individuals who share basic philosophical perspectives and collaborate practically, but may diverge in detail questions. [...] By defying ownership regulations in the construction and use of information—a key area of contemporary growth—the Free/Open Source Software (FOSS) movement counters neoliberalism and privatization in general. By realizing the historical potential of an "economy of abundance" for the new digital world, FOSS may lay down a plan for political resistance or show the way towards a potential transformation of capitalism. According to Yochai Benkler, Jack N. and Lillian R. Berkman Professor for Entrepreneurial Legal Studies at Harvard Law School, free software is the most visible part of a new economy of commons-based peer production of information, knowledge, and culture. As examples, he cites a variety of FOSS projects, including both free software and open-source."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software

Copyleft

"Copyleft is the legal technique of granting certain freedoms over copies of copyrighted works with the requirement that the same rights be preserved in derivative works. In this sense, freedoms refers to the use of the work for any purpose, and the ability to modify, copy, share, and redistribute the work, with or without a fee. Licenses which implement copyleft can be used to maintain copyright conditions for works ranging from computer software, to documents, art, and scientific discoveries, and similar approaches have even been applied to certain patents.

The origin of the term comes from "Li-Chen Wang's Palo Alto Tiny BASIC for the Intel 8080 [first] appeared in Dr. Dobb's Journal in May 1976. The listing begins with the title, author's name, and date, but also has "@COPYLEFT ALL WRONGS RESERVED"."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

"There have been several attempts to define open source and free software. Amongst the earliest was Free Software Foundation's Free Software Definition, which then defined as the three freedoms of Free Software (Freedom Zero was added later). Published versions of FSF's Free Software Definition existed as early as 1986, having been published in the first edition of the (now defunct) GNU's Bulletin. [...] The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) was [then] first published together with the first version of the Debian Social Contract in July 1997."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition

"Debian GNU/Linux (/ˈdɛbiən/),[7][8] or simply Debian, is a free and open source[b] Linux distribution, developed by the Debian Project, which was established by Ian Murdock in August 1993. Debian is one of the oldest operating systems based on the Linux kernel, and is the basis of many other Linux distributions. As of September 2023, Debian is the second-oldest Linux distribution still in active development: only Slackware is older."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian

"The concept of applying free software licenses to content was introduced by Michael Stutz, who in 1997 wrote the paper "Applying Copyleft to Non-Software Information" for the GNU Project. The term "open content" was coined by David A. Wiley in 1998 and evangelized via the Open Content Project, describing works licensed under the Open Content License (a non-free share-alike license, see 'Free content' below) and other works licensed under similar terms. The website of the Open Content Project once defined open content as 'freely available for modification, use and redistribution under a license similar to those used by the open-source / free software community'. However, such a definition would exclude the Open Content License because that license forbids charging for content; a right required by free and open-source software licenses. [...] Unlike free content and content under open-source licenses, there is no clear threshold that a work must reach to qualify as 'open content'. The 5Rs are put forward on the Open Content Project website as a framework for assessing the extent to which content is open:

Retain – the right to make, own, and control copies of the content (e.g., download, duplicate, store, and manage)

Reuse – the right to use the content in a wide range of ways (e.g., in a class, in a study group, on a website, in a video)

Revise – the right to adapt, adjust, modify, or alter the content itself (e.g., translate the content into another language)

Remix – the right to combine the original or revised content with other open content to create something new (e.g., incorporate the content into a mashup)

Redistribute – the right to share copies of the original content, your revisions, or your remixes with others (e.g., give a copy of the content to a friend). 

This broader definition distinguishes open content from open-source software, since the latter must be available for commercial use by the public. However, it is similar to several definitions for open educational resources, which include resources under noncommercial and verbatim licenses. [...] In 2006, a Creative Commons' successor project, the Definition of Free Cultural Works, was introduced for free content. It was put forth by Erik Möller, Richard Stallman, Lawrence Lessig, Benjamin Mako Hill, Angela Beesley, and others. The Definition of Free Cultural Works is used by the Wikimedia Foundation. In 2009, the Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons licenses were marked as Approved for Free Cultural Works."

So in theory, copyleft operates under the assumption that offering open content freely and publicly as a social community resource will lead to an economy of abundance in a postscarcity economic model of the means of production. (seize the means! lmao)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity

"Technology has reduced the cost of publication and reduced the entry barrier sufficiently to allow for the production of widely disseminated materials by individuals or small groups. Projects to provide free literature and multimedia content have become increasingly prominent owing to the ease of dissemination of materials that are associated with the development of computer technology. [...] Free and open-source software, which is often referred to as open source software and free software, is a maturing technology with companies using them to provide services and technology to both end-users and technical consumers. The ease of dissemination increases modularity, which allows for smaller groups to contribute to projects as well as simplifying collaboration. Some claim that open source development models offer similar peer-recognition and collaborative benefit incentive as in more classical fields such as scientific research, with the social structures that result leading to decreased production costs. Given sufficient interest in a software component, by using peer-to-peer distribution methods, distribution costs may be reduced, easing the burden of infrastructure maintenance on developers. As distribution is simultaneously provided by consumers, these software distribution models are scalable; that is, the method is feasible regardless of the number of consumers. In some cases, free software vendors may use peer-to-peer technology as a method of dissemination. Project hosting and code distribution is not a problem for most free projects as a number of providers offer these source-code-hosting provider provider free of charge."

For instance, the Open Knowledge Foundation's Open Definition describes "open" as synonymous with the definition of free in the "Definition of Free Cultural Works" (as also in the Open Source Definition and Free Software Definition).[5] For such free/open content both movements recommend the same three Creative Commons licenses, the CC BY, CC BY-SA, and CC0. [...] Any country has its own law and legal system, sustained by its legislation, which consists of documents. In a democratic country, laws are published as open content, in principle free content; but in general, there are no explicit licenses attributed for the text of each law, so the license must be assumed as an implied license. Only a few countries have explicit licenses in their law-documents, as the UK's Open Government Licence (a CC BY compatible license). In the other countries, the implied license comes from its proper rules (general laws and rules about copyright in government works). The automatic protection provided by the Berne Convention does not apply to the texts of laws: Article 2.4 excludes the official texts from the automatic protection. It is also possible to "inherit" the license from context. The set of country's law-documents is made available through national repositories. Examples of law-document open repositories: LexML Brazil, Legislation.gov.uk, and N-Lex. In general, a law-document is offered in more than one (open) official version, but the main one is that published by a government gazette. So, law-documents can eventually inherit license expressed by the repository or by the gazette that contains it."

"In academic work, the majority of works are not free, although the percentage of works that are open access is growing. Open access refers to online research outputs that are free of all restrictions to access and free of many restrictions on use (e.g. certain copyright and license restrictions).[24] Authors may see open access publishing as a way of expanding the audience that is able to access their work to allow for greater impact, or support it for ideological reasons.[25][26] Open access publishers such as PLOS and BioMed Central provide capacity for review and publishing of free works; such publications are currently more common in science than humanities. Various funding institutions and governing research bodies have mandated that academics must produce their works to be open-access, in order to qualify for funding, such as the US National Institutes of Health, Research Councils UK (effective 2016) and the European Union (effective 2020). [...[ For teaching purposes, some universities, including MIT, provide freely available course content, such as lecture notes, video resources and tutorials. This content is distributed via Internet to the general public. [...] Open content publication has been seen as a method of reducing costs associated with information retrieval in research, as universities typically pay to subscribe for access to content that is published through traditional means.[9][34] Subscriptions for non-free content journals may be expensive for universities to purchase, though the articles are written and peer-reviewed by academics themselves at no cost to the publisher. [...] Free and open content has been used to develop alternative routes towards higher education. Open content is a free way of obtaining higher education that is focused on collective knowledge and the sharing and reuse of learning and scholarly content. There are multiple projects and organizations that promote learning through open content, including OpenCourseWare and Khan Academy. Some universities, like MIT, Yale, and Tufts are making their courses freely available on the internet. There are also a number of organizations promoting the creation of openly licensed textbooks such as the University of Minnesota's Open Textbook Library, Connexions, OpenStax College, the Saylor Academy, Open Textbook Challenge, and Wikibooks."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_content

Copyright

"In most countries, the Berne Convention grants copyright holders control over their creations by default. Therefore, copyrighted content must be explicitly declared free by the authors, which is usually accomplished by referencing or including licensing statements from within the work. The right to reuse such a work is granted by the authors in a license known as a free license, a free distribution license, or an open license, depending on the rights assigned. These freedoms given to users in the reuse of works (that is, the right to freely use, study, modify or distribute these works, possibly also for commercial purposes) are often associated with obligations (to cite the original author, to maintain the original license of the reused content) or restrictions (excluding commercial use, banning certain media) chosen by the author. [...] Copyright is a legal concept, which gives the author or creator of a work legal control over the duplication and public performance of their work. In many jurisdictions, this is limited by a time period after which the works then enter the public domain. Copyright laws are a balance between the rights of creators of intellectual and artistic works and the rights of others to build upon those works. During the time period of copyright the author's work may only be copied, modified, or publicly performed with the consent of the author, unless the use is a fair use. Traditional copyright control limits the use of the work of the author to those who either pay royalties to the author for usage of the author's content or limit their use to fair use. Secondly, it limits the use of content whose author cannot be found.[10] Finally, it creates a perceived barrier between authors by limiting derivative works, such as mashups and collaborative content."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_content

"The concept of copyright developed after the printing press came into use in Europe in the 15th and 16th centuries. It was associated with a common law and rooted in the civil law system. The printing press made it much cheaper to produce works, but as there was initially no copyright law, anyone could buy or rent a press and print any text. Popular new works were immediately re-set and re-published by competitors, so printers needed a constant stream of new material. Fees paid to authors for new works were high and significantly supplemented the incomes of many academics. Printing brought profound social changes. The rise in literacy across Europe led to a dramatic increase in the demand for reading matter. Prices of reprints were low, so publications could be bought by poorer people, creating a mass audience. In German-language markets before the advent of copyright, technical materials, like popular fiction, were inexpensive and widely available; it has been suggested this contributed to Germany's industrial and economic success.

The concept of copyright first developed in England. In reaction to the printing of "scandalous books and pamphlets", the English Parliament passed the Licensing of the Press Act 1662, which required all intended publications to be registered with the government-approved Stationers' Company, giving the Stationers the right to regulate what material could be printed. The Statute of Anne, enacted in 1710 in England and Scotland, provided the first legislation to protect [publisher] copyrights [rights to copy the text] (but not authors' rights). The Copyright Act 1814 extended more rights for authors but did not protect British publications from being reprinted in the US. The Berne International Copyright Convention of 1886 finally provided protection for authors among the countries who signed the agreement, although the US did not join the Berne Convention until 1989. [...] Copyright laws allow products of creative human activities, such as literary and artistic production, to be preferentially exploited and thus incentivized. Different cultural attitudes, social organizations, economic models and legal frameworks are seen to account for why copyright emerged in Europe and not, for example, in Asia. In the Middle Ages in Europe, there was generally a lack of any concept of literary property due to the general relations of production, the specific organization of literary production and the role of culture in society. The latter refers to the tendency of oral societies, such as that of Europe in the medieval period, to view knowledge as the product and expression of the collective, rather than to see it as individual property. However, with copyright laws, intellectual production comes to be seen as a product of an individual, with attendant rights. The most significant point is that patent and copyright laws support the expansion of the range of creative human activities that can be commodified. This parallels the ways in which capitalism led to the commodification of many aspects of social life that earlier had no monetary or economic value per se. Copyright has developed into a concept that has a significant effect on nearly every modern industry, including not just literary work, but also forms of creative work such as sound recordings, films, photographs, software, and architecture."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

GNU template definition https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software FOSS

Elizabeth I Portraiture | Musings

 Elizabeth I created a standard for portraiture in the Early Modern English age of the artform of portraiture. Remember that the time when the paintings were created was often after death or around specific large events as the creation of anything bigger than a palimpsest book or illustrated biblical pocketbook was a marvel given the distance that the ingredients and materials required to create these works travelled and in the circumstances under which they were created. Portrait miniatures were often instead the primary visual medium at the time, not the grand canvas and tapestry scales many royal portraits took in this time. These were created specifically to conjure an idea of grandeur, majesty and awe. Portrait minatures were successfully launched to England by Levina Teerlinc (c.1510-1576) from illuminated manuscript production under the workshop of her continental Dutch father and prior artists who had dabbled after 1450 in some miniatures. She and Esther Inglis, as well as Thomas Hilliard are widely known as some of the more popular portrait miniaturists of the Elizabethan and Tudor court periods.

Keep in mind that Elizabethan portraiture is heavily edited as the portrait was always after the same Darnley likenesses of around 1560 which is why her portraits appear so similar after this time when she ascended to the throne. They were tools of power and authority to symbolise the literal editing of the historical narrative to one befitting a Gynocentric one from this time on. Feminism in the truest sense of the term. These symbolic tools incorporated Elizabeth widely read usage of European and further afield symbolic allegory of mythology taken from Classical and contemporary sources as Elizabeth herself spoke and read in around 6-9 languages fluently and certainly came into contact with many more, a large number of which are today extinct or obsolete languages.[1] 

Some of the artists whom Elizabeth worked with being Hilliard, Cornelis Ketel, Federico Zuccaro or Zuccari, Isaac Oliver, and perhaps Gower and Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger. Many of these later editions were created with the intent of being shown to foreign powers, including foreign countries/regions and individuals in the earlier period of Elizabeth's reign. Local work for local owners of portraits in the British elites were laid along their long galleries which paid homage to Elizabeth as Queen specifically to curry favour within her royal court, and became fashionable architectural elements of Elizabethan grand manors. This zeitgeist has been referred to as the cult of Gloriana.

The Family of Henry VIII 1545

Not a sole portrait but this gives us the grounding for the type of world into which Elizabeth was born into. When she was first entering the world into which she found herself she was simply the image that was projected before the world for the benefit of her father. 

That is she was the progeny of a great man in a world of great men and not regarded by those in charge of enough money to commission portraiture at the time worth much more, particularly in the idea of the formation of the state craft portraiture certainly for the Tudor s that these matters entailed. Here she is shown very simply as a child in their parental charges, albeit as a princess of a second failed marriage which had by then been moved on into the third, which was seen as surpassing both Mary and Elizabeths importance for that of their brother who would go on to die as a child and having left very little impact other than to confirm that he was indeed a 14 year old boy from the get-go.

Instead this is an image which represented for Elizabeth the hell into which she had been born. The dynastic succession disputes created and caused utterly by the rakish whims of her rakish father figure. This also confirms her position within the court circles of painters such as Hans Holbein and the role portraiture conveyed in her life, as well as her familiarity and adoption of painting and portraiture to convey particular roles into the forward motions of court life and states craft.[2]

Lady Elizabeth Tudor 1546 

The earliest portraits of Elizabeth were her 1546 portrait as a teenager. At the time she was inbetween the care of her mother and being a ward of the crown due to her father's sinful displays of domination towards her father by cruelly ripping her away from her care and into the hands of her new cardinal, who proceeded to try to fondle her buttocks at the tender age of 14. This was the world Elizabeth was born into and expected to have her entire life dictated by, the whims and wishes of mediocre male mortals. 

Instead we can also infer the symbolism inherent in the family lore Elizabeth was positioned between as the daughter of Anne Boleyn. Boleyn was the chaste mother of Elizabeth, who became pregnant after Henry VIII decided to be a little rake that year. He was inbetween his situationship with his current wife, and because he wanted Anne, he decided to make a new state religion and get with his mistress anyway because even the Pope thought he was being too much of a rake for anyone's good. Boleyn in this portraiture is thought to have given her teenage daughter this dress, as it was her favourite colour, and a short while after was sent to the execution block because Henry was back on his rake business because his gout had lead to his spermatozoa becoming infertile, but rather than blame his own failing, disgusting health and habits, he blamed his mistr-wife. 

So in her 1546 portrait, we can see the sort of world and decisions that Elizabeth was allowed to make. None. She existed in a power vacuum based on her Rakish father's decisions of the week, leading to the death of her mother and the destruction of her half-sisters relationships, as a state between being the rightful heir and the ungrateful protestant allowed to live in a predominantly, albeit continental, Catholic European hierarchical structure until Henry created Anglicanism. Even by the artists own hand, this was meant to be a portrait which limited excessive ornamentation, therefore focusing the attention away from luxe towards the purity of Elizabeth in youth as a young, plain girl. This of course sounds ridiculous with hindsight, but remember that at this time Elizabeth's mother had just died for being in the wrong place at the wrong time according to the 'Men' around them both, and in making out Elizabeth to be just a plain, garden variety princess this emphasised her unimportant status at the time. In other words, masking her status to protect her from a fate like that of her mother's by attracting 'the wrong kind of attention' beheaded women of the period seemed to find themselves alongside. Instead, the 1546 portrait was meant to say to a viewer 'here is the daughter of an ex-royal, nothing to see here'. Meanwhile, Elizabeth was in grieving for her mother, whom she could not legally speaking mourn in the traditional manner given it was the kings will the women aforementioned be put to death, in a parting gift from her mother whilst balancing the duties of incumbent and non-incumbent royal court duties.

Symbolic objects such as roses or prayer books were included in some of Elizabeth's earliest portraits. Prayer books indicated her love of reading, study and piety, perhaps also an elevated sense of progressiveness associated with allowing a woman to rule at the time, along with the fact that Elizabeth could even read at the time at all. When these things came to be in the sense of roses, these were harkening to the Tudor lineage through the War of Roses succession crisis of the previous centuries. For her medieval audience (remember we are talking about matters of state) her roses would have signified a dual meaning of her lineage and also millefleur tapestries depiction of the Madonna, a significant replacement of the Catholic imagery when these were used in later portraiture.

On this matter of purity and the death of her mother, this was a constant in her early life. To the point that in a statement to her incumbent parliament on the matter of succession, she declared: ‘Assuredly, if my successor were known to the world, I would never esteem my state to be safe.’[5] Death for women was a constant, and in the Henry Tudor realm, they were seen as particularly replaceable objects. In this way, purity becomes a symbol for the matter of which Elizabeth projected out to the world, whilst also following her own follies and differing opinions from that of men. She instead projected herself onto England in a bid to both self-sacrifice and renew the flailing state the country had been left in under the succession crisis and disputes created by her father and some men in the time of her youth to lead her to needing to be a pure, chaste, virgin Queen outwardly, whilst her inwards world was one of books, learning, poetry, mythology, favourites, ladies in waiting, games, warfare, state policy and day to day theatricals.

After this time, this purity of image was perhaps as a coping mechanism maintained by Elizabeth in her portraiture. It is thought she may have requested this matter in the way Hilliard was said to reduce the amount of ornament, falsity and chiaroscuro included in portraits of her through 1560 to 1580 for example. This was held to be such the case that in a Proclamation from 1563 (1563 memorandum), there was a great discussion of Elizabeth's being depicted in 'blacke with a hoode and cornet', a style which held the wearer to be a pious Christian women, as found in the portrait miniature of her be Levina Teerlinc from 1550 for use in a private capacity.. something which by this time with Elizabeths ascendance to the throne and thus increased need for legitimacy to shoulder the Tudor dynasty as only the second female ruler in the Kingdom of England to do so, was an unbefitting image of the Elizabethan queen, instead more suitable for a Tudor princess. 

Hilliard was introduced around this timeframe as the apprentice to Elizabeth's jeweller, Robert Brandon, showcasing that there was a general feeling by Elizabeth already at this time of the importance of having creatives around her and encouraging their work. Elizabeth in this way gave money to Protestant and British creatives, such as Hilliard, Brandon and Treelinc during these times to make miniatures, manuscripts, bibles, jewelry, portraits and paintings. She was in this way responsible for some of the overall milieu of the art world in the wake of Shakespeare, goldscraft, embroidery, tapestries and other artforms which sprang up and flourished during her reign.

Hampden portrait 1560

Thus the Hampden portrait was introduced into the fray by the English court painter, George Gower.  Here she is depicted in the work as an upright person in colour. She is depicted as wearing the Red rose of the House of Lancaster and a gillyflower. The Rose sits atop a chair, commentating on her link to the royal lineage as a viably legitimate candidate in a time after 2 centuries of instability and random candidates from the leading Platagenet and other branch families of the English royal family. She is firmly stating that the House of Lancaster is where she does her allegiances and heritage towards, rather than perhaps the incredible instability the House of York had held during that century. The Gillyflower may be a reference either to Shakespeare, or to peppercorn rents, which may have indicated to a select few the actual budget allocation a young queen was intending to expend. This was a direct fiscal reaction to her father's lavish expenditures, such as those rakish matters of state as the Agincourt battle of the Field of the Cloth of Gold of 1520, where Henry VIII had a habit of overspending on. In turn however in the use of the Gillyflower, the implied message back from the Queen's barter was that of 'Socage shall be applied', ie, lords may have their lavish spending and the Queen hers on occassion to please the matter of appeasing the general populace and pleasing the aristocratic court, but in return Socage (pledging allegiance to a monarch whose land a feudal lord resided on) must applied in return, as had applied in the time of Edward VI under his Quia Emptores (1290) which dictated that English land cannot be given away willy nilly without the authorisation of proper authorities. In other words, I will be the head of your messy realm, but you will serve absolute allegiance to my authority or else. This was a regular message with implied undertones to a select number of aristocratic elites who may have been planning subterfuge or treasonous activities involving the usage of English land and coffers to do so. 

The incredibly expensive carpet she stands atop which may have indicated her trade allegiances at the time as she began the initation in the 1570s (letters travel by boat then) towards the Anglo-Moroccan alliance of her loyalties and interests as a new monarch. Behind her is what appears to be either a tapestry or some kind of collection of fruit, most of which was mostly a brag about how much money and mostly connections she had to be able to afford such luxuries as fresh fruits, mostly as many of these seeds came from places like the New World or the earth of Elizabeth's many great estates. This is mostly signified by what appears to be some kind of tool or anchor (?) in the bottom right which seems to have be related to these fruit varieties most likely. This also makes reference to the peppercorn rents, as peppercorn was used as a bartering system during this time due to frequent famines, but was also an exotic luxury good deemed at the time more valuable than gold as a spice of the East Indies. Thus these items were traded for feudal rights to plough and own land to the crown and other feudal headmen systems.

All in all the Hampden portrait gives the idea that this a general portrait of a new stable queen. The significance of this is that most of the issue surrounding Elizabeth at this time were instability from other family members trying to take the throne. Albeit whilst her 'gloves are off', meaning she will wage war for her throne through her claim in the other hand, she is sitting for a generally human portrait in comparison to later portraiture claimature. This was a theme which was often revisited in the gloves, and which would start a long glove craze in the successive courts of James VI of Scotland in a bid to be even a tenth of the human being Elizabeth was whilst James burnt witches and screwed everything except his wife. In this way for Elizabeth, gloves were a sign of favour which came with the territory of kissing the hand so to speak. She though long fingers, her own in other words, were a sign of elegance and royalty.[4]

Elizabeth I and the Three Goddesses 1569

Here Elizabeth begins to use portraiture as part of state crafting and nation building through her knowledge of classical mythology. The portrait here involves the usage of the story of the Judgement of Paris.

 "Eris, the goddess of discord, was not invited to the wedding of Peleus and Thetis. In revenge, she brought a golden apple, inscribed, "To the fairest one," which she threw into the wedding. Three guests, Hera, Athena and Aphrodite, after some disputation, agreed to have Paris of Troy choose the fairest one. Paris chose Aphrodite, she having bribed him with the most beautiful mortal woman in the world, Helen of Sparta, wife of Menelaus. Consequently, Paris carried Helen off to Troy, and the Greeks invaded Troy for Helen's return. Eris' Apple of Discord was thus the instrumental casus belli (or her not being invited to the wedding in the first place) of the Trojan War."

Instead of Paris, a figure whom Elizabeth deliberately depicts herself as thereby inducing the stature and posturing Paris is meant to invoke in a reader, as she would have seen and done so herself. 

In the portraiture, she is the one now commanding the 3 goddesses Juno, Venus and Pallas-Minerva who abide by her command at the bottom of a step. This may have started as a sort of self insert fanfiction, however the end result is again, that of states craft. The matter at hand is that of the impending crisis that the Trojan wars depict the fall of Troy, whereas it is said that the portraiture herself is inversed. This was the rather unsubtle matter of saying 'I am in charge, and I will be stable'. The context here is more important the actual Queen staffage itself. The Queen here is shadowed by her predecessor, the first Queen of the realm, Mary I, also known as Bloody Mary for her particularly aggressive and cruel treatment of many of her 'subjects' during her rule. Elizabeth instead beguiles the specter by demanding the respect of her sex given that the previous Catholic monarch had fumbled the bag, earning her successive moniker. 

IVNO POTENS SCEPTRIS ET MENTIS ACVMINE PALLAS / ET ROSEO VENERIS FVLGET IN ORE DECVS / ADFVIT ELIZABETH IVNO PERCVLSA REFVGIT OBSVPVIT PALLAS ERVBVITQ VENVS'. Translated as: 'Pallas was keen of brain, Juno was queen of might, / The rosy face of Venus was in beauty shining bright, / Elizabeth then came, And, overwhelmed, Queen Juno took flight: / Pallas was silenced: Venus blushed for shame'.[4]

Indeed the world in this painting is said to be the real world, and the world on the right pure fantasy, with the royal courts insignia part of the everyday Gloriana, and the right the land of fantasy envisaged by the flight of the goddess Venus in her chariot of swans.[4]

After 1570, the queens portraiture became something the English parliaments wished to display a sense of devotion and veneration from her subjects. These were meant to replace the Catholic imagery that had come before it, of Catholic saints, of the Madonna, of the miraculous Virgin birth of Jesus. Each of the prior lose strands of these public yarns about the Queens identity were spun into a tapestry which made up her new place as the head of her fathers Rake decisions. She literally took on the mantle of making the Tudor dynasty work, work Henry had been too busy shagging rosbif to do. For example her day of accession became Accession day (tilts), and just as Queen Elizabeth II started doing her TV appearances, these become fodder for the public imagination of what an 'English queen' got up to in England. 

The Family of Henry VIII: An Allegory of the Tudor Succession 1572

This is basically a joke from Elizabeth to Francis Walshingham, Elizabeth's master spy.[3] Inside this allegorical satire, the modicum of decency shown in handing the legitimacy to the English throne is shown in the way Henry VIII directs his line of descent through the hand of her kid brother to herself shown in the age in which she was at the time the painting was commissioned by Elizabeth. This was a commentary on stability.

The carpet under which all of these individuals are stood represents the Anglican Church, which was ruled after Henry VIII by only Protestants and Catholics on occasion. Those on the carpet are said to be in Elizabeth's worldview, the rightful heirs by blood to this matter at the time. The Catholic opposition  however, displayed on the right is the Spanish ruler Phillip II who had married Mary I who had died 20 years previously. Privately, this was a matter of ridiculing the Catholic supposition to the throne as the Pope was trying to at that very moment excommunicate Elizabeth from the religion. At this time, the fracture of England to Protestantism and Lutheranism, can be seen as whole when it was a matter of personal excommunication of the English queen who had so managed to rule without the problems of Mary. It was in this manner, that Elizabeth was communicating to her medieval and by then state craft image that she was the rightful ruler and had earned her spot in the geo-social-politics of medieval European court drama that established her right to rule.

Behind Philip is Mars, the God of War, implying strife caused by Philip II's rule, at this time in England and later down the line by invoking old tensions in the future. Behind Elizabeth however are the goddesses of Peace and Plenty, a clearcut message to the generals and leaders of Elizabeth mercenaries and armies that at the helm, she would lead England for Englands sake rather than as a personal moneypot which Philip used his lands, titles and possession for, much as occurred with the Philippines in later years, and the legend of the Black death arose around the Old and New World in raised heckle against.[3] 

Indeed around the context is where Elizabeth situates herself, placing herself as specifically, in the inscription beneath it all, as 'last of all a Vyrgin Queen to England’s joy we see, Successyvely to hold the right and virtues of the three'.[3] This was most likely created to bolster the Treaty of Blois (1572) which was made to build upon an alliance of England-France versus Spain v Netherlands dynamic in a bid to make the Protestant nations stronger in continental Europe. Her master spy at the time, was the ambassador to France, so this was a cheeky way of saying, 'we shall overcome all odds Philip raises to us' as it was also implied that Philip at the time was in control of the Pope, meaning her excommunication was a personal attack from her brother-in-law who was trying to discredit her legitimacy on the basis now, not of her sex as her father had done, but on the basis of her religion, and in trying to excommunicate her and claiming she was a simply heretyck who would need to be burned at the stake to quell the anger of his omnipotent god. Philip was not a nice person. To top this off, the portrait was made by an exiled Protestant from the Spanish Netherlands.

Hilliard Miniatures

Some of the royal portrait miniatures at this time turned to Hilliard as there was some criticism of not enough royal patronage being spent on British designers and craftspeople, given that Holbein and Treelinc both came from the continent and other designers and craftspeople were often overlooked by more established craftspeople from areas such as Flanders, Antwerp and other established book publishing centres maintained by monks and other writers and manuscript illuminators. 

Pelican and Phoenix 1576

During this time, Hilliard began the Pelican and Phoenix portraits. These were both made from the same wood and complemented one another in the way that these images symbolised the birth of the stable England Elizabeth had promised. At the cost of which was to become apparent later on, but the domestic economy of England by that point was more stable under her reign than it had been during the previous tumultuous reigns and wars of the previous rulers of the kingdom of England. Each of the portraits retain their titles from the jewelry worn by the Queen.

The pelican in her piety is a symbol of the medieval period. It was said that the pelican would feed its young with blood from it's own body to nurture the young. This gave the image of a self sacrificing being fostering the talent and future of its young over itself. The pelican pendant has it s wing outstretched and its beak in its breast, given the image of a self-effacing and humble monarch as derived in the lore of the time, an image that Elizabeth was fond of. In this way, it was said that Elizabeth sacrificed some creature comforts as well as her own blood sweat and tears for England. 

Large pearls symbolising purity and Artemis, the god of the Moon, are also shown everywhere. Continuing the purity theme, 2 cherries adorned the Queens earlobes, an untouched Virgin reference. Fringing above her head implies the Queendom and the usual Tudor rose runs amock. In this particular portrait, a Flower of Lis gives the impression of her claim to the kingdom of France. Her gown also displays blackwork, a particular embroidery embellishment which showcased her local homegrown artefacts, replete in roses.

The Phoenix portrait is a mirror image copy of the Pelican, symbolising an animal which is rising from the ashes to be reborn anew. It should not be understated that this was most likely the idea of Elizabeth distinguishing her right to rule given mediocrity and other biases which allowed the double standard of men creating things and then cocking them up, whilst not allowing women the same ability, time nor place to do the same. This double portrait by Hilliard implied that here was a grandeur for the double here and is what the author of this blogpost takes to imply in the aftermath of state craft that Elizabeth had come to realize in private, but not to take up in public as it would have ruined her claim to the throne and ability to rule independently and alone as an older woman in particular. 

The Phoenix represented for Elizabeth the rebirth of her image and use in society and for the realm. Unlike the Pelican, it was not a humble self-sacrificing emblem, but rather a matter of state craft once again, in that rejection of all that came before her to try something new so as to be able to create the overall immersion of a new England and new type of role model. By this point as quasi-absolute monarch, she decided what direction her fashion, her governments, her realm in other words would go. Slaving, the Protestant and Catholic wars and all of the succession disputes she had to mop up after her father was done were things with which the Phoenix was required as a symbol for. The Pelican on the other hand was invoked as a matter of taking the overall burden of the world into which she had newly birthed. She was as she once said not married to a single man, as she was 'already bound unto a husband which is the Kingdom of England'.[5] Instead Elizabeth used her messed up situation as Virgin Queen to benevolently  for its populace move England towards a national state of independence. Her marriage, her womb, her bedchamber were a matter of state. As such, she would never marry foreign princes or even her own native lover. This would have drawn England into war and other men's realpolitik afterall, as Mary I had been done so to under her marriage with Philip II.[6]

Instead Elizabeth rejected this and made herself and England independent of others. We can see this in the way Elizabeth referred to her favourite in allegorical ways, 'Robyn' being Robert Dudley for example.[5] Albeit it that later on in his life, he became tarnished and for a being of state, this was not good enough. Mortal men were too mediocre for royalty, even in 1560. Instead Dudley was made an Earl and tucked into the footnotes of history as another British favourite. Her marriage prospects abroad as well are limited as a royal, and even though she wanted to marry a younger brother of the King of Anjou in 1581, this was called off after it was found out he was Catholic. In sacrificing her love life and giving her body over to the image of state craft and England, she arose from the ashes becoming invested by this time in her portraiture immensely, as one of the creative crafts and 'appropriate' ways she could let her own thoughts be felt.[5]

Gloriana

With the imposition of Gloriana in full swing, it became expected for those who curried favour to wear an image of the Queen's likeness. Usually in the form of a brooch (see the Drake or the Armada jewel).

1580s

By the time the Armada arrived, these had become the cult of Gloriana, with all of the long gallery's, poetry and popular plays of the day (Shakespeare) replete with reference and inference to the ongoings of Elizabethan court creativity.

Emmanuel College charter 1584

Given his position as royal limner Hilliard

By the 1590s, these portraits became stuck in time from the Darnley era and created an emerging age of eternal youth and beauty. An engagement in public relations to the greater political and global British empire that had begun proper under the Elizabethan and Tudor banner.

Purity to rule

Virginity and Purity were also present in a great amount of the symbolism of the works, take for example the naming of Virginia.

Allusions were often made to the moon and pearls for this very matter.

Moon symbolism was often in sway with Diana and Artemis, the Roman and Greek goddess of the Moon and the Hunt.

Portraits

The Family of Henry VIII 1545

The Lady Elizabeth Tudor 1546

Lady Elizabeth 1550

Hampton Portrait 1560

Elizabeth I and the Three Goddesses, 1569

The Family of Henry VIII: An Allegory of the Tudor Succession 1572

Miniature by Hilliard 1572

Phoenix Portrait 1576

Pelican Portrait 1576

Emmanuel College charter 1584

[1] https://blogs.bl.uk/european/2021/11/elizabeth-i-and-languages.html

[2] https://www.rct.uk/collection/405796/the-family-of-henry-viii

[3] https://sudeleycastle.co.uk/news/allegory-tudor-succession-painting

[4] https://www.rct.uk/collection/403446/elizabeth-i-and-the-three-goddesses

[5] https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/elizabeth-i-marriage-succession

[6] https://www.royal.uk/elizabeth-i#:~:text=Elizabeth%20chose%20never%20to%20marry,the%20Queen%20into%20factional%20infighting

英国王室と着物 | The British Royals and Kimono | c.1615 - 2022

In lieu of the usual post, to respect the passing over of HRH Queen Elizabeth and early departure of Diana, this post will be updated as and when in the future. It covers the known history of the British Monarchies brushes with Kimono and KTC which spans many types of materials and forms.

EIC

Whilst it is not certain, it is believed a series of Japanese Kosode could have been sent to King James I as part of the bid to begin trade with a European country such as Britain by as early as 1615.[1] These were originally exported into the country by the EIC between 1613-1620 when England operated a factory in Japan.

Indian Gownes

Banyan were imported into England by around 1665 and are likely to have been used in the courts of Charles II, brought from Amsterdam by the EIC ( East India Company ). During this time, the fashionable wore their Banyans with the sleeves and collars folded back to expose the luxurious silks used underneath.[2]

 Merry Vests

The Banyan often was companion to the 3 piece suit which was invented at the court of Charles II in 1666. To promote English trade over French fashions worn by the aristocratic classes of England, Charles began a new fashion of wearing vests at his English court.

[Charles II] hath yesterday in Council declared his resolution of setting a fashion for clothes, which he will never alter. It will be a vest, I know not well how, but it is to teach the nobility thrift, and will do good. - Samuel Pepys 8/10/1666

The Banyan as a T-shaped garment made from silk for gentlemens loungewear was made in Britain certainly by the 1670s. It was with the advent of the newly fashionable three piece suit that aristocratic men began styling their wardrobes with lavish accents such as gold trim, silk buttons, satire worthy hats and overcoats to match. One of these fashions by 1675 was the Banyan style House coat or even Kimono in rarer instances in which the fashionable late 17th century man of means lounged around in.[2] 

The Glorious Porcelain Revolution

Arita Porcelain Ware Bijin (c1690-1700) Royal Collection Trust

During the Stuart House (1603-1704) Queen Mary (1662-1694) and her consort William were invited to 'invade' England and become the reigning *protestant* monarchs. The incoming Continental born Queen brought the fashion for Porzellan zimmer (Porcelain rooms) which displayed hundreds to thousands of decorative porcelain pieces in their collectors home. Queen Mary was known for collecting Japanese Arita-ware and Dutch Delftware (imitation Guangzhou export porcelain) at the Water Gallery in Hampton Court, and it is thought that this China-collecting habit carried on as a fashionable court hobby for ladies in particular. So much so that collecting porcelain was considered a 'feminine trait' after 1690.

The Bijin porcelain collected in the period where first the Kakiemon-ware by the 1680s, then Arita-ware in the 1690s and most prominently Imari-ware at its height from 1700-1850. Whilst it can be said that the earlier incarnations of collectors of Kakiemon and Arita bought for the 'Indian effect', later British collectors prized Imari-ware for its own beauty. You can distinguish Kakiemon figures by their subdued Ma Ji-Monnyu and sparse use of motif and colour. Arita Bijin use distinctly black Obi in their designs and a limited blue-red-emerald green colourway and Imari-ware are immediately noticable for their use of intricate red-deep blue-gold colourways and red obi. Some of these features by this time will also have catered to European tastes as export-ware.

 

Kakiemon Bijin (c.1675) | Arita Bijin (c.1690) | Imari Bijin (c.1700)

RTC, Dresden Palace (PD/CC3.0,4.0)

This (middle) Bijin figure wears a Genroku period (1688-1704) Ji-Monnyu style, and thus may be either from the collection of Queen Mary or Queen Anne (1665-1714). Due to the lack of interest in women collectors though, we can only go off the appearance clues alone in dating the figure, and whilst the Bijin figure is contemporary to Mary, the fashion for Imari, the colours associated in England with this aesthetic were far more popular in the reign of Queen Anne and thus could be from the collections of either of their majesties, reflecting the fascination with 'Indian Nightgownes' of the 1690s. This late Stuart tradition carried on until the Georgian period, when the fashions changed once more to suit contemporary tailoring.

Georgian Forays 

Japanese export Banyan worn by George VI (c.1800) Musuem of Applied Art and Sciences

This recent archival liberation was worn by King George IV by the 19th century and was most likely acquired through the VOC.

Victorian Escapades

Japanese Tableau Scene Postcard (1891, PD) Royal Collection Trust

A tableau vivant scene performed every year at the Royal Residence around Christmas in 1891 was dedicated to performing a Japanese scene with the many Japanese objects collected in the Royal Collection for the enjoyment of Queen Victoria.

Anglo-Japanese Alliance 1902-1923

The Abdicated One or Edward VIII (c1921, PD) Anonymous

Why we call him the Abdicated One. (1937, Fair Use) BBC

Edward was very friendly with his Japanese counterpart, the Crown Prince of Japan during the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. He visited during the 1920s and dressed in Japanese Wafuku during his time there.

The Elizabethan Epoch

The Queen in Japan (1975) Someone

Princess Diana

Princess Diana on official tour duties (1986) Japan School

When Princess Diana visited Japan in 1986, she was gifted this intricate Furisode.

For more related British-Japanese royal interactions, see the Japan; Courts and Culture Exhibition on until February 2023. Has a great selection of how the royal family has kept certain items related to Japan as well as some of the original reciprocal gifts during the Anglo-Japanese Alliance.

Bibliography

[1] Japanese Export Lacquer: 1580-1850, Oliver R. Impey, ‎C. J. A. Jörg, ‎Christiaan Jorg, 2005, p.600?

[2] ヨーロッパのバンヤン | European Banyans | 1639 - 1750 | Essay #14 

External Links

https://www.rct.uk/collection/themes/exhibitions/japan-courts-and-culture/the-queens-gallery-buckingham-palace

Social Links

One stop Link shop: https://linktr.ee/Kaguyaschest

https://www.etsy.com/uk/shop/KaguyasChest?ref=seller-platform-mcnav or https://www.instagram.com/kaguyaschest/ or https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5APstTPbC9IExwar3ViTZw https://www.pinterest.co.uk/LuckyMangaka/hrh-kit-of-the-suke/ 

ヨーロッパのバンヤン | European Banyans | 1639 - 1750 | Essay #15

This essay will explore the European garment known as a Banyan, which originated as a European reaction to Kimono in the 17th century and was popular until the end of the 18th century. The word Banyan originates from Arabic (بنيان | Banyaan), Portuguese (Banian), Tamil (வாணியன் | Vaaniyan ) and Gujarati (વાણિયો | Vaaniyo) loanwords meaning 'Merchant'. Alternative versions saw the item fitted with buttons and ribbons to attach the two front sides together.[1] The Banyan was worn by all genders and was particularly regarded in its first iterations as a gentlemanly or intellectual garment worn with a cap to cover the lack of a periwig, and later adopted by women and greatly influenced how British womens garments were designed with preference for comfort in removal of panniers whilst maintaining luxurious, modest 18th century fashions (see Robe a la Anglaise).

Japanse Rock

Wafuku were first imported into Europe by 1649 into the Dutch Republic, and their scarcity made them a highly sought after commodity among the wealthy who could afford them, like a Birkin bag today.[2] 17th century Banyan can be recognised by their characteristic cut which resembles those of contemporary articles of Wafuku* which reached Amsterdam in the early trading period with Japan as gifts from contemporary Daimyo and Tokugawa Ietsuna (1641–1680), then Shogun. Taking their cut from Kosode of the time, some were sold and worn in the Dutch Republic (1581-1795) after being assembled in Japan and brought over by the VOC ( Dutch East India Company | Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie). European Banyan were most commonly made from Silk, Cotton or Linen.[1] This style of dress was known by the Dutch as a Japanese dress coat (Japanse Jurk Jas) by 1688.[2]

Indian Gownes

Banyan were imported into England by around 1665 and are likely to have been used in the courts of Charles II, brought from Amsterdam by the EIC ( East India Company ). During this time, the fashionable wore their Banyans with the sleeves and collars folded back to expose the luxurious silks used underneath. Earlier Dutch examples seem to more closely follow the imported Kosode styles which due to their padding required a tight closed hem and thus not as easily folded. Samuel Pepys wrote in 1665 of doing his accounting in his nightgown, and was quite happily portrayed in 1666 in the same 'Indian Gowne' which connoted his vast wealth and status in even having one at this early time, demarcating him as a glamourous society figure and fashionable figure at court.[2]

Samuel Pepys in his 'Indian Gowne' (1666, PD) John Hayls

Indian Gowne and Morning Dress was another name for a Banyan[2]

Dutch Man in Banyan (1671, PD) Michiel van Musscher

Merry Vests

The Banyan often was companion to the 3 piece suit which was invented at the court of Charles II in 1666. To promote English trade over French fashions worn by the aristocratic classes of England, Charles began a new fashion of wearing vests at his English court.[3]

[Charles II] hath yesterday in Council declared his resolution of setting a fashion for clothes, which he will never alter. It will be a vest, I know not well how, but it is to teach the nobility thrift, and will do good. - Samuel Pepys 8/10/1666 [3]

The Banyan as a T-shaped garment made from silk for gentlemens loungewear was made in Britain certainly by the 1670s.[2] It was with the advent of the newly fashionable three piece suit that aristocratic men began styling their wardrobes with lavish accents such as gold trim, silk buttons, satire worthy hats and overcoats to match. One of these fashions by 1675 was the Banyan style House coat or even Kimono in rarer instances in which the fashionable late 17th century man of means lounged around in.

'Lord Cockerell' Display Doll in latest London Fashions (c1690, Copyright the V&A**) V&A

The upper proto-middle classes (if we can say that) of the working professionals in the time period had also begun to wear their nightgownes out in the street, unlike the gentry who simply swanned around their estates in them.[2] Both of these two social groups however would have worn these long androgynous gowns over linen shirts and their breeches or stays and chemises for women of the time. At the end of the day, Men would dress as this elegant doll in their Banyan which took the place of their waistcoats by evening. All a byproduct of the complex Restoration periods realpolitik at the English court as a 'mother country'.

Isaac Newton in a Banyan (c1709, PD) James Newton Thornhill

As this style progressed, buttons became a must and frogging was also a key feature of 18th century first quarter British Banyans to prevent the garment trailing along the floor, a workaround for the lack of Obi it seems. By the 1730s, in London alone there were five general tailor stores or Warehouses which specialised in selling ready-to-wear Banyans made using European and Chinese silks. Other Banyans also had attached waistcoat inserts sewn into Banyans to give the illusion of a waistcoat as well for recieving visitors in the Banyan.[2] 

Thomas Weston (1723, PD) M Dahl

A Rake's Progress (1735, PD) William Hogarth

Figure third from right here wears a Banyan style

Banyan should be regarded as European garment made for European usage, but are distinctly part of European KTC in the sense that they were made, worn and used by Westerners. Banyan were regarded as a sort of unisex loungewear for the well to do about the house, which often co-orded with the furniture.[2] By the 1730's, they were given an intellectual veneer as men of letters often wore them to have their portraits painted in their well endowed libraries. Gentlemen would recieve visitors in them, and as is seen in the Rakes Progress, became the equivalent of a woman in rollers and sweats going to the shop for milk at 11:00PM. Add a fitted collar, and the Rake could be deemed as almost acceptably dressed to go out in public.[2] 

Robe a la Anglaise (English nightgown) Dress (c1785, PD) LACMA

Banyan were also adopted as a form of nightwear by women to worn before dressing in daywear by this time adopting a ribbon or buttons to fasten them.[1] Womens Banyan otherwise were the same shape, a sort of cloak. Womens Banyan often had pleated and broader backs than Mens, and are certainly far scarcer in todays collections. By 1740, the Banyan peaked in popularity and the grammar nazi Samuel Johnson himself noted it in 1755 as a 'Bannian'. Extant examples of the 1760s show the development of a 'Banyan pleat', which consists of 3 inverted box pleats along the spine and sides of the garment to reign in the fabric. These were also made into dresses and were the forerunner of the Robe d'Anglaise fashion which took the pleats from the waist rather than in a backless gown. The 1790 Close bodied (Anglaise) style also revealed the front petticoats, much like the overturned Banyan hems of menswear a century before.

Coromandel Banyan (c1750, PD) Sharon Sadako Takeda

Other countries also assisted in the production and thererby acculturation of these garments, principally China and India.[2] The above garment was a Coromandel (India) Banyan made for the gentleman at home and were popular until the late 18th century when the vogue became more fitted garments once more. This may be due to the popularity of the Banyan as loungewear expanding to wider portions of the Continentals who wanted the look, but didnt want the excess fabric. No, excess fabric ist zur exotisch fur die Kontinentals. Non, they wanted smoking jackets. In this stead, Indian tailoring techniques were also adopted into Banyans and became more fitted and adopted high necklines and tighter sleeves from similar Mughal court dress.

British fitted Banyan (c1780, PD) Andrew Bolton

A merry party (c1850, PD) Dorotheum

Instead by around 1780, the Banyan silhouette became more slimmed down and the back of the garment was still incredibly loose, acting as more of a coat than a robe, though retaining the social function as home loungewear. Due to the power of the Ottoman Empire though, new styles began to come into vogue.  Based on Middle Eastern styles, the smoking jacket became more popular by the 1840s. Banyan were still worn however until 1860 as a robe albeit without the excess trailing fabric in the sleeves or length of the 17th century edition. Rather than radical luxury, the Banyan or dressing gown was now the form we use today.

Conclusion

In context the overall picture we can gather of the Banyan is that as a European component of KTC, the Banyan was actively influenced by Kosode design and tailoring from 1665-1720 as an accompaniment to English fashions. 1720-1780 saw this continue with an emphasis on comfort which in France was the Robe Volante style. 1780-1860 saw the inclination towards East and Central Asians styles dominated the designs of Banyans, particularly those in Silks and Brocades.[2] After 1835 in particular, we clearly see the Banyan vogue fading in favour of the smoking jacket style in menswear, and with a similar pleated consensus in womenswear albeit by 1760, evolving into the Close bodied gown style by 1780.

Banyans began as a European alternative to the ludicrously rare Kosode of the mid 17th century and became known by 1700 as the grandfather of the modern dressing gown. Banyan acted as signifiers of taste, wealth and fashionable attire in England and the Dutch Republic at the height of their popularity, amid a time where the landed gentry sought and bought for the Japanese effect, rather than from primary sources such as Japanese artists, unless we are discussing the items were brought by the VOC at the time. The influence thus of Japanese KTC on  European textiles was in allowing greater freedom of movement, comfort and in providing an early form of androgynous or unisex tailoring in Western European tailoring and silhouettes, altering Western aesthetical conceptions of how the body interacted with cloth and space in acceptably modest forms.[2][4]

Additional Examples:

 - https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O1244844/night-gown-unknown/ (1720-1750 Banyan)

Bibliography

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banyan_(clothing)

[2] http://www.fashioningtheearlymodern.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Banyans-21.pdf | Object in focus: Man’s banyan, Moira Thunder, 2012, Victoria and Albert Musuem for the Europeana Project

[3] https://vogue.sg/history-of-the-three-piece-suit/

[4] https://fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/robe-a-langlaise/ 

*I use 'Wafuku' instead of Kimono, as always, becuase the term 'Kimono' originated among Japanese people in reaction to the need for a word to distinguish Wafuku and Yofuku becuase foreigners asked for one; without which otherwise there would be difference prior to the 1860s, the Kimono as a social construct only entering global culture after 1918. 

**I presume the object is under the public domain down to age, the file itself is purely used to illustrate on educational content of contemporary fashions and is used here specifically in a non-commercial function. I do not intend to represent the views of the V&A, nor claim any affiliation, nor speak nor write on their behalf but am operating under the fair use clause of the 1988 UK copyright legislation, intentionally in an educational, non-commercial function under good faith. Having read the T&C's, I cannot find a specific license for these images, and thus presume the file is copyrighted and do not condone any third party actions usage of this file. All copyright again belongs to the Museum, not myself and if you wish to use the file, please see the Musuems T&C for use.

Socials:

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/LuckyMangaka/timono/