I believe the practice was rather widespread (?global) in the past, but can anyone suggest what country, culture, or time period is being depicted here?
Found at Miss Folly.
Addendum: I found this at Wikipedia:
A painting known as the De Wikkellkinderen (The Swaddled Children), from 1617, is thought to represent a depiction of TTTS. The drawing shows twins that appear to be identical, but one is pale (possibly anemic), while the other is red (possibly polycythemic). Analysis of the family histories of the owners of the painting suggests that the twins did not survive to adulthood, although whether that is due to TTTS is uncertain.And a major hat tip to AF, who accessed The Lancet to extract this information:
From The Lancet, Volume 356, Issue 9232, Pages 847 - 848, 2 September 2000
"A Case of Twin-to-Twin Transfusion in 1617" by H.M. Berger, F. de Waard, and Y. Molenaar
"However, it is well documented that the twins were boys. They were the children of Jacob Dirkszoon de Graeff (1571-1638), mayor of Amsterdam, and Aeltje Boelens (1579-1620), and were the nephews of P C Hooft. The De Graeff family's shield is pictured in the right and left upper corners of the painting and the date "den 7 April 1617" is just legible between them. The family's genealogical records, however, do not mention them and it seems likely that they died soon after birth, possibly on the day on which they were born[....] We do not know whether the babies were alive or dead when they were painted. If the babies died on the day of their birth, they would have been painted posthumously. Portrayal of deceased children, which began in the 15th century, was a common practice in the 17th century, but gradually disappeared thereafter. In this period, dead babies could be portrayed with their eyes open to show that they were liveborn rather than stillborn."
And here's the link for more details about twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome.
You learn something every day.
now this is just a shot in the dark but...in colonial america there were traveling artists (often unknown) referred to as Limner artists by art historians.
ReplyDeleteOften they'd travel around with paintings that were mostly finished, say, a fully painted body but no face. The limner would go to a home, get commisioned and paint a family member's face in the empty area they left.
These swaddled babies look an awful lot like limner paintings...just paint a swaddle, don't paint the face, go to a home, get commissioned and then paint the baby's face in.
once again, just a shot in the dark, here.
Even if that's not the right answer, that's an interesting bit of information. Thanx, flux.
ReplyDeleteI'd suspect the answer is can be found by someone that can identify the heraldry in the top corners of the picture. All you need is a good herald.
ReplyDeleteUnlikely to be colonial America since the date is 1617
ReplyDeleteFWIW, swaddling is still in use around the world, including in the US. Many/most newborns feel safer when they're wrapped up instead of arms-and-legs-akimbo. They're also warmer that way.
ReplyDeleteThis level of formal wrapping and the type of lace looks Continental to me (Flemish, perhaps?) but I'm speaking from general knowledge rather than any actual authority when I say that.
A little late for Elizabethan, but that's what the ruffs and collars that surround the babies' faces remind me of. I'd guess they were fairly aristocratic babies for their swaddling to have that kind of adornment (unless the painting was a limner-like deal, as flux biota suggests, and the frills were just part of the prepainted swaddling).
ReplyDeleteThe painter wasn't exactly skilled at rendering babies' faces. They both look middle-aged.
--Swift Loris
Middle-aged, and ugly.
ReplyDeleteI found this tonight after some searching of the net.
ReplyDeleteA Polar Bear's Tale has a collection of paintings of swaddled children -
http://polarbearstale.blogspot.com/2011/08/svbelsesbrnin-swaddling-clothes.html
- including this one, where they are called "De Wikkkelkinderen or The Swaddled Twins."
Googlilng wikkkeldinderen gave me this -
De Wikkelkinderen. (t)wo infants swaddled in white. Unknown artist, painting dated 7April 1617. Muiderslot Muiden, the Netherlands.
And a link to this page on Wikipedia -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:De_Wikkellkinderen.jpeg
Getting closer, I think.
And now this from Wikipedia -
ReplyDeleteA painting known as the De Wikkellkinderen (The Swaddled Children), from 1617, is thought to represent a depiction of TTTS. The drawing shows twins that appear to be identical, but one is pale (possibly anemic), while the other is red (possibly polycythemic). Analysis of the family histories of the owners of the painting suggests that the twins did not survive to adulthood, although whether that is due to TTTS is uncertain.
- on the page for twin-twin transfusion syndrome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin-to-twin_transfusion_syndrome
And finally to an article at The Lancet -
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2800%2902665-9/fulltext
which I can't access fulltext.
he Lancet, Volume 356, Issue 9232, Pages 847 - 848, 2 September 2000
A case of twin-to-twin transfusion in 1617
Original Text
Prof HM Berger FRCPCH a Corresponding AuthorEmail Address, Prof F de Waard MD c, Y Molenaar MA b
The Muiderslot, a beautifully restored mediaeval castle near the town of Muiden (20 km east of Amsterdam), houses an interesting collection of Renaissance art, furniture, and armour. During the 17th century, the Golden Age of the Dutch Republic, it hosted the so-called Muiderkring, a circle of literary friends around the famous poet and writer P C Hooft (1581—1647), a magistrate who lived at the castle from 1609 until his death in 1647...
Enough for tonight.
My house, a few years ago. I found out a tightly wrapped baby cries less!
ReplyDeleteFrom _The Lancet_, Volume 356, Issue 9232, Pages 847 - 848, 2 September 2000
ReplyDelete"A Case of Twin-to-Twin Transfusion in 1617" by H.M. Berger, F. de Waard, and Y. Molenaar
"However, it is well documented that the twins were boys. They were the children of Jacob Dirkszoon de Graeff (1571-1638), mayor of Amsterdam, and Aeltje Boelens (1579-1620), and were the nephews of P C Hooft. The De Graeff family's shield is pictured in the right and left upper corners of the painting and the date "den 7 April 1617" is just legible between them. The family's genealogical records, however, do not mention them and it seems likely that they died soon after birth, possibly on the day on which they were born[....] We do not know whether the babies were alive or dead when they were painted. If the babies died on the day of their birth, they would have been painted posthumously. Portrayal of deceased children, which began in the 15th century, was a common practice in the 17th century, but gradually disappeared thereafter. In this period, dead babies could be portrayed with their eyes open to show that they were liveborn rather than stillborn."
When the iron curtain fell there were pictures of Romanian orphans wrapped like this.
ReplyDeleteI remember seeing, at one of the Smithsonian museums, a tiny warped, mangled skeleton of a baby whose body was wracked with rickets, brought on by a Vitamin D deficiency from being so swaddled.
ReplyDeleteMy 34-year-old daughter last week told me she was pregnant. Then she dropped the bomb that she was having triplets, with one set of identical twins and one fraternal. Though they have a 3-year-old already, they were having trouble getting pregnant again, and decided to go in vitro. Her clinic typically implants two fertilized eggs, and this time both took, and one of them had also split.
ReplyDeleteI'd never even THOUGHT about such things as this - either the way of "tripleting," nor TTT and mono- and dichorionic twins.
Like you said, "You learn something new every day"!
Why do I suddenly feel like going bowling?
ReplyDelete@TravelerDiogenes, congratulations to you, your daughter, and her husband. What a thrill! And what an interesting crew that'll be to watch grow up.
ReplyDelete--Swift Loris
Perhaps the artist just ran out of paint.
ReplyDeleteI did thoroughly enjoy the post and the comments, however, so apologies for being flippant.