Humanities desk
< November 15	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 17 >

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

November 16

Identifying a person from an historical picture

The image at right is a picture of a meeting between John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster and John I of Portugal during negotiations which resulted in the Anglo-Portuguese Alliance. Lancaster, signified by the Coat of arms of England is seated at left. The king of Portugal, signified by the Coat of arms of Portugal is seated at the center. On the right is a bishop, or head of a delegation of bishops (wearing mitres and capes) who is signified by a coat of arms I can't recognize. If anyone can possibly recognize him or the coat of arms in question, that would be very helpful. Thanks! --Jayron 32 18:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Azure, a lion rampant or doesn't ring a specific bell with me (it's drowned out by House of Nassau). Unfortunately it's likely to be repeated many times in different countries, though not for bishoprics. If I weren't so busy today I'd start looking in commons:Category:Coats of arms of bishops. —Tamfang (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following that track, the Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia arms are a very close match (basically identical), but it went extinct a decade before this meeting, and I doubt a connection between a petty Russian state and a bishop in Portugal... --Jayron 32 01:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curious, my searches were drowned out by Sheldon Cooper who apparently has this device as his "room flag". Anyhow, the closest I got was this fellow, which is the emblem of the legendary Urien, a Knight of the Round Table (not much help I'm afraid). Alansplodge (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a diferent tack, this account of the meeting by Sir Jean Froissart says:

"On the Saturday after Mass, they again mounted their horses, and returned to Pont de More in grand array. The duke this day entertained at dinner the king and his attendants. His apartments were decorated with the richest tapestry, with his arms emblazoned on it, and as splendidly ornamented as if he had been at Hertford, Leicester, or at any of his mansions in England, which very much astonished the Portuguese. Three bishops and one archbishop were seated at the upper table: the Bishops of Lisbon, of Oporto, of Coimbra, and the Archbishop of Braganza. The King of Portugal was placed at the middle, and the duke somewhat below him; a little lower than the duke, the Count d'Acunha and the Count de Novaire..." Alansplodge (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only arms I can think of that match are those of Leeuwarden. DuncanHill (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Archbishop of Braganza the same as the Archbishop of Braga? --Jayron 32 01:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it is said Archbishop, it would be likely him, according to pt:Lourenço_Vicente, he was a major supporter of John I, and also the most powerful ecclesiastical leader in all of Iberia, so his presence would have not been unlikely. I can't find his arms yet, but I'm a looking. --Jayron 32 02:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Damn it's close. See Here. That's a lion rampart, but not the same lion rampart as in the image above. Probably not positive enough to confirm yet, but it is VERY tantalizing. Not sure if the field is supposed to be azure there, it looks argent, but that would be a violation of the laws of heraldry. Maybe it is supposed to be azure, and just overexposed to look whiter. --Jayron 32 02:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lion rampant is a lion rampant; the same coat may be drawn differently on different days. —Tamfang (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that much. But white is not blue on any day of the week... --Jayron 32 13:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, Vicente's arms have a bordure gules, which those in the illustration do not. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you misled me by saying "not the same lion" rather than "not the same field". NBD. —Tamfang (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the shield by Lancaster is not his arms (England with a label of France) but the arms of the king whom he represents. Perhaps the shield in question is similarly not that of the bishop but of some other interested party. —Tamfang (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We might be doing this the hard way; the illustration above is from "Chronique d' Angleterre (Volume III)". It might be easier to find that narrative which would tell us who was sitting at the table, without the need to decipher the heraldry. Alansplodge (talk) 10:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the relevant page.[1]. I'm working on the text. 92.8.63.27 (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can view the original manuscript at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=royal_ms_14_e_iv_fs001r - use the drop-down menu at the top right to find f.244v. How is your Old French? I can only guess at the caption: "Comment le tor de poztingral et le duc de lanclastve se trouuerent ensamble et de leure deiusee ___ Chapitre ___ xliiiie" which doesn't seem to name the bishop. But there is more in the surrounding text if you can decipher it. 184.147.122.87 (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the link, the Archbishop of Braga is described as "Archbishop of Braga and Primate of the Spains". His province doesn't appear to cover Spain, so how did he acquire that title? There is something similar in the titles of the British monarch (who laid claim to both France and Ireland) and the inscription on the coins of coronation year include the phrase "BRITT:OMN:REG:" (Brittaniarum omnium regina) which means "Queen of all the Britains". The Romans called the Iberian peninsula Hispania. It was divided into a number of provinces - the westernmost one (roughly equivalent to modern Portugal) was Lusitania. Thus the term "Luso - Brazilian" indicates Portuguese speakers generally as "Hispanic" indicates Spanish speakers generally. So when the Spanish adopted the name Hespanha for their newly unified country the Portuguese were understandably upset. Espanhol as a noun (Spaniard) in Portuguese is derogatory - their term for the language is more likely to be castelhano (Castillian). Note that Lisbon has a Patriarch, thus ranking alongside Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem and Rome. 92.8.63.27 (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of Roman Catholic archdiocese, "Primate of all the Spains" or "Primate of Hispania" includes the entire Iberian peninsula, which is a title held by the Archbishop of Braga. We don't have a separate article on the office, but This search turns up some information, as does This older book which notes that the claim for the Archbishop of Braga as primate over the whole peninsula is claimed, but disputed by the Archbishop of Toledo. --Jayron 32 13:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to the manuscript, on page f.245r, near the top of the right-hand column, I read something like: Si seyzent a la table du Roi, le duc, deux Evesques et larchevesque du bargues, which could be roughly, "At the table of the king sat the duke, two bishops and the archbishop of 'Bargues.'" Are Bargues, Braga, and Braganza all the same? You got me. But, for what it's worth.........Herbivore (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]