I didn't realise until I started to travel widely in Europe, that domestic dwellings had radically changed in their layout starting from late 19th to early in the 20th Century.
In the UK we think of a kitchen with a hearth that heated the house but this was not the european model. We think of a hall way with rooms leading off it. This was not the case, many dwellings were more like a progression through the rooms from entry way to meeting room to kitchen to bedroom. We see this often in royal palaces with the first entrance room for lower people progressing to the final room where royals would meet only the most favoured guests. But what has this to do with a foot warmer? The only form of heating would come the oven, quite often wood burning. Situated with the flue in the centre of the house or apartment it would heat the dwelling through the walls - not formally with pipe work but simply because it made things hot. If you were in a north facing room away from the central wall this would have been incomparably cold during the winter and any thing that could keep you warm or at least take the edge of the cold would help. The use of stones placed into the fire to warm up has long been used but if you look closely at the box it has an earthenware bowl in it - similar to many chaffing dishes of the time. Rather than the use of embers from the fire it is more likely that this bowl would contain charcoal in it - think of the heat from glowing charcoal in a bbq - it stays hot for long periods without fire or smoke. The dairy needs to be cold to prevent the milk from going off but heat would have been needed for starting the cheese process - using the charcoal in a bowl would allow the maid to add it to her chaffing dish for gentle heating then place it back in the box to store and give some relief from the cold in the room. Dairies are traditionally built north facing to ensure that they are cold all year round so in the winter this would have been an unforgiving place to be. However, this again raises one of the traditional observations about historical paintings. Having spent many hours studying 17th Century paintings in order to recreate period life there is one thing that you can be certain of. Paintings are not Photographs. Yes, I know, that's obvious but it isn't really. The allegorical placement of items into paintings to signify things was a common practice right up to recent times (and actually does continue today). Casper Netscher's masterpiece; the lace maker (Wallace Collection London for the original and a damn fine print in my bedroom) is an excellent example of this. http://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org/eMuseumPlus;jsessionid=22D4B84DF8854420B82F2AE038B10CE8.node1?service=direct/1/ResultDetailView/result.t1.collection_detail.$TspImage.link&sp=10&sp=Scollection&sp=SelementList&sp=0&sp=0&sp=999&sp=SdetailView&sp=0&sp=Sdetail&sp=0&sp=F (copy the whole link and paste it in or search wallace collection lacemaker) The description on the wallace website says: "Netscher’s undisputed masterpiece, The Lace Maker is one of the most successful representations of idealised female virtue in Dutch art. The girl’s modest woollen dress implies her lack of vanity, while her absorption in the delicate and difficult task of lace-making underlines her seriousness and moral probity. Stylistically the picture reveals Netcher’s sensitivity to the formal experiments of the Delft School, in particular to the understated light-filled interiors of De Hooch and Vermeer. The concentrated subject, bold restricted palette and sculptural quality of the figure, offset against a luminous white wall, lend the picture an aura of monumental gravity, belying its modest dimensions." Really it represents that? Because standard interpretations of the symbology in other paintings suggest that a broom pushed to the side shows a wanton lack of homemaking and the kicked off shoes added to that implies that this lady is anything but a virginal girl working on her lace but instead is making lace during the day and earning money through another means at night. The mussel shells to the right of the picture are seen to reinforce this. So is she a virginal lacemaker industriously working or a wanton harlot making money day and night? Or is Netscher playing with us and showing a representation of the two sides of women in classical art - the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdelean? Throw a coin and make your choice as I can't ask Netscher the answer and he didn't leave us any other clues than his paintings. Kind Regards Liz Baker > On 30 Dec 2014, at 17:08, Rose Peel <[email protected]> wrote: > > Do you think it is a foot warmer? Cinders from the fire would be placed in the > red pot that would be placed in the wooden box with holes in the top. The > Lacemaker would sit with it on the floor under her skirt. - To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [email protected]. For help, write to [email protected]. Photo site: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lacemaker/sets/
