I requested a book at the library today: A Brief History of the Smile, by Angus Trumble. I heard him interviewed a few years ago and was absolutely fascinated. He points out that our forebears did not smile much when having their portraits painted or photographed. One, they mostly had awful or missing teeth. Two, bared teeth is a sign of aggression in primates.
I am really looking forward to reading it!
Another book I can recommend wholeheartedly is "Shakespeare's Face" by Stephanie Nolan. Fantastic! It tells about an undoubtedly genuine l7th century portrait owned by a family in Ottawa, Ontario and takes the reader on the long, detailed journey to determine if the man in the picture is William Shakespeare.
Two nifty books
Two nifty books
Dig deeper.
-
truehobbit
- Cute, cuddly and dangerous to know
- Posts: 6019
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:52 am
- Contact:
I think you don't necessarily have to bare your teetch in order to smile - that seems to me to be a US invention of the beginning of the glamour-culture.
There are hints that people's teeth were bad, but I doubt they could have been so universally bad that they would have avoided smiling in a way that showed their teeth.
The fact that people's faces in portraits are serious I think has to do with wanting to appear serious and respectable. They could easily have given a smile with the mouth closed, but it just wasn't done.
As to the other book: why should the face be Shakespeare's?
Sounds to me to be as far-fetched as it can get, but of course people would be more interested in that kind of "revelation" than if it was the portrait of John Smith.
Sorry to sound so negative, I just tend to have issues with popular history.
There are hints that people's teeth were bad, but I doubt they could have been so universally bad that they would have avoided smiling in a way that showed their teeth.
The fact that people's faces in portraits are serious I think has to do with wanting to appear serious and respectable. They could easily have given a smile with the mouth closed, but it just wasn't done.
As to the other book: why should the face be Shakespeare's?
Sounds to me to be as far-fetched as it can get, but of course people would be more interested in that kind of "revelation" than if it was the portrait of John Smith.
Sorry to sound so negative, I just tend to have issues with popular history.
but being a cheerful hobbit he had not needed hope, as long as despair could be postponed.
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
Well, I think they may not smile in those older paintings because you had to "sit" for them for days and days, and your face would wear out! 
They both sound interesting, vison!
They both sound interesting, vison!
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
-
truehobbit
- Cute, cuddly and dangerous to know
- Posts: 6019
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:52 am
- Contact:
According to Trumble, people's teeth were bad. A man, whose name escapes me, was known as the handsomest man in London around about the time Jane Austen was writing. He had no front teeth at all and yet was still seen as "the handsomest man in London". Imagine that nowadays!
Having a portrait made was a serious business, no doubt. Particularly when you had to sit for a painter, or for early photographic portraits. Yet people apparently did not smile as we do, and it was seen as terribly bad manners if you did, besides exposing your poor or missing teeth.
Very, very few old or ancient portrayals of a human face show a smile at all. The Mona Lisa famously smiles, but her teeth don't show.
Smiling as we do is a convention, a custom, in our time. But the custom is not universal even now, and is seen as slightly hostile by many cultures.
Modern dentistry, particularly in the US, has made many people think that a mouth full of your own white teeth is the norm. It isn't, for much of the world, and in the past was even less so. We see it as expressing good health and energy and friendliness, but those are very new ideas.
As for Shakespeare's Face, the book is absolutely worth reading. The painting is genuine as to age, and the owners have excellent provenance for it. I won't say how it turns out, but there is no chicanery involved, no wishful thinking, no attempt to pass off a dubious fake. The picture dates from Shakespeare's era, this is well accepted by art historians. The only question is: is it Shakespeare? If so, why is that true? If not, why not?
Having a portrait made was a serious business, no doubt. Particularly when you had to sit for a painter, or for early photographic portraits. Yet people apparently did not smile as we do, and it was seen as terribly bad manners if you did, besides exposing your poor or missing teeth.
Very, very few old or ancient portrayals of a human face show a smile at all. The Mona Lisa famously smiles, but her teeth don't show.
Smiling as we do is a convention, a custom, in our time. But the custom is not universal even now, and is seen as slightly hostile by many cultures.
Modern dentistry, particularly in the US, has made many people think that a mouth full of your own white teeth is the norm. It isn't, for much of the world, and in the past was even less so. We see it as expressing good health and energy and friendliness, but those are very new ideas.
As for Shakespeare's Face, the book is absolutely worth reading. The painting is genuine as to age, and the owners have excellent provenance for it. I won't say how it turns out, but there is no chicanery involved, no wishful thinking, no attempt to pass off a dubious fake. The picture dates from Shakespeare's era, this is well accepted by art historians. The only question is: is it Shakespeare? If so, why is that true? If not, why not?
Dig deeper.
-
truehobbit
- Cute, cuddly and dangerous to know
- Posts: 6019
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:52 am
- Contact:
Well, people didn't have dental hygiene.
On the other hand, they didn't have candy or anything sugary readily available either.
There's a famous quote from a French (or so) traveller to England in the 16th century, who wrote that the English all had black teeth from their too great use of sugar.
With the rough manner in which people were handled in former times, I wouldn't be astonished if knocked out front teeth were commonplace.
There's also a well-known superstition that a woman loses a tooth for each child she bears. (I think I read somewhere that this might have had to do with lack of vitamins or minerals or something during pregnancy.)
Still, I think it's a very big stretch to connect that to the convention of being portrayed with a serious expression.
Maybe you could summarise the authors arguing for us when you've read the book?
As to the Shakespeare pic - what's the big deal about it being a 17th century portrait? There must be hundreds of 17th century English portraits around and there were thousands of people in England with the means to have a portrait done. Why on earth should it be Shakespeare?
I'm sorry, but without any more background I find the supposition simply far-fetched.
Shakespeare happens to be the most famous person of the age, so of course that's the first connection people make. Just like with all the supposed Mozart portraits around. Whenever there's a portrait that fits in time and place, of course it must be Mozart. And it just doesn't make sense.
If it's to avoid spoilers that you can't say more, you could write "spoilers" on top of your post, leave some space, and then say more - that way people who want to be spoiler-free can just skip the post. I'd be really curious to hear some real reasons of the author.
On the other hand, they didn't have candy or anything sugary readily available either.
There's a famous quote from a French (or so) traveller to England in the 16th century, who wrote that the English all had black teeth from their too great use of sugar.
With the rough manner in which people were handled in former times, I wouldn't be astonished if knocked out front teeth were commonplace.
There's also a well-known superstition that a woman loses a tooth for each child she bears. (I think I read somewhere that this might have had to do with lack of vitamins or minerals or something during pregnancy.)
Still, I think it's a very big stretch to connect that to the convention of being portrayed with a serious expression.
Maybe you could summarise the authors arguing for us when you've read the book?
As to the Shakespeare pic - what's the big deal about it being a 17th century portrait? There must be hundreds of 17th century English portraits around and there were thousands of people in England with the means to have a portrait done. Why on earth should it be Shakespeare?
I'm sorry, but without any more background I find the supposition simply far-fetched.
Shakespeare happens to be the most famous person of the age, so of course that's the first connection people make. Just like with all the supposed Mozart portraits around. Whenever there's a portrait that fits in time and place, of course it must be Mozart. And it just doesn't make sense.
If it's to avoid spoilers that you can't say more, you could write "spoilers" on top of your post, leave some space, and then say more - that way people who want to be spoiler-free can just skip the post. I'd be really curious to hear some real reasons of the author.
but being a cheerful hobbit he had not needed hope, as long as despair could be postponed.
-
MaidenOfTheShieldarm
- It's time to try defying gravity
- Posts: 430
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:35 pm
- Location: Seeking the coast of Utopia.
Those both sound interesting, especially the one about smiling. I'll have to look for them this summer.
Have you read either Will in the World or The Lost Painting: The Quest for a Caravaggio Masterpiece, vison? I haven't read the latter, but it sounds like it might be along the same lines.
Hobby, I haven't read either book, but I would be VERY suprised if the authors didn't back up their hypotheses with nothing more than "it's a nameless painting from the right time period", etc. Not that you have valid points, but there's no need to assume that they are wrong or baseless suppositions right off the bat.
I'll have to look for them this summer.Have you read either Will in the World or The Lost Painting: The Quest for a Caravaggio Masterpiece, vison? I haven't read the latter, but it sounds like it might be along the same lines.
Hobby, I haven't read either book, but I would be VERY suprised if the authors didn't back up their hypotheses with nothing more than "it's a nameless painting from the right time period", etc. Not that you have valid points, but there's no need to assume that they are wrong or baseless suppositions right off the bat.
And it is said by the Eldar that in the water there lives yet the echo of the Music of the Ainur more than in any substance else that is in this Earth; and many of the Children of Ilúvatar hearken still unsated to the voices of the sea, and yet know not what for what they listen.
As for the smile, yes, of course people had bad teeth in those days for many reasons. That's why they didn't show them. Reading fiction from the 18th and 19th centuries it is entirely noticeable that when an author is describing the beauty of a character, one thing that is seldom mentioned is their smile. Several times, as a matter of fact, Trollope and Dickens mention the silliness of a character's false teeth. False teeth were often made of a solid piece of ivory which was then marked with lines to indicate the teeth. (George Washington did not have false teeth carved from wood, although some people did.) I recall Sir Peregrine Orme being described as a very handsome old man, allowing for the "ruin time had made among his teeth".
Bad teeth are not the only reason for people to be portrayed unsmiling, of course. But it is one of the reasons. "The Laughing Cavalier" is a very famous painting and it is unusual largely because the guy is laughing.
Until fairly recently a toothy smile was seen as just plain rude. It was often mentioned as a sign of villany in a person.
"Shakespeare's Face"
This is a wonderful detective story, but not fiction.
It's not merely a nameless painting from the right era, not at all. The picture, whoever the sitter is, is a masterpiece of portraiture but has been mostly unseen by the public for most of its nearly four hundred years of existence. It has been believed by the various owners for centuries that it IS a picture of Shakespeare. When the current owners decided to have the matter settled once and for all it took a great deal of time and effort to have reputable art experts even admit that the painting had any merit beyond its age or to look at it at all. "Portraits" of Shakespeare surface all the time and are always fakes or mistakes, and this picture was treated as both for years before someone decided it might be worth examining. And when the examination was begun it led to a lot of excitement in the art world and the Shakespeare world.
SPOILERS below.
The upshot of the book is that the man in the painting is not likely to be Shakespeare. The reasons were complex and some scholars still think it is William Shakespeare. The date of the painting fixes the age that Shakespeare would have been had he been the subject and the consensus among one group of scholars is that the man in the picture seems too young and too rich. Yet it is a compelling picture and resembles the one known portrait of Shakespeare quite strongly. However, it may well be the picture of a young actor/writer known to Shakespeare, whose name escapes me. Art historians can "place" the painting with astonishing accuracy as to where it was likely painted and have some interesting theories about the painter.
There is no doubt of the painting as far as how old it is, where it was painted, etc., even the kind of wood the panel is made from and where the tree it was cut from was probably grown. Someone paid a pretty penny to have it made. The interest of the book for me was the fascinating description of the work of the various art experts and historians and those expert in clothing of the period, and those who knew the names of all the actors and playwrights in London at the time, etc. The paper that the label is made from, the ink that was used, every clue that could be tested was tested, and at no point did the painting fail a test. Except the one for which there can be no positive answer: is it William Shakespeare or not? Maybe one day someone will unearth the painter's receipt book and see it written down: "today was paid by Bill Shakspere for portrat of himself" or something of that nature. Or maybe the receipt will have been to "Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, for pic. of his latest paramour. . . ."
I believe the book mentioned above about the "lost Carveggio" is a similar detective story and I look forward to reading it.
Bad teeth are not the only reason for people to be portrayed unsmiling, of course. But it is one of the reasons. "The Laughing Cavalier" is a very famous painting and it is unusual largely because the guy is laughing.
Until fairly recently a toothy smile was seen as just plain rude. It was often mentioned as a sign of villany in a person.
"Shakespeare's Face"
This is a wonderful detective story, but not fiction.
It's not merely a nameless painting from the right era, not at all. The picture, whoever the sitter is, is a masterpiece of portraiture but has been mostly unseen by the public for most of its nearly four hundred years of existence. It has been believed by the various owners for centuries that it IS a picture of Shakespeare. When the current owners decided to have the matter settled once and for all it took a great deal of time and effort to have reputable art experts even admit that the painting had any merit beyond its age or to look at it at all. "Portraits" of Shakespeare surface all the time and are always fakes or mistakes, and this picture was treated as both for years before someone decided it might be worth examining. And when the examination was begun it led to a lot of excitement in the art world and the Shakespeare world.
SPOILERS below.
The upshot of the book is that the man in the painting is not likely to be Shakespeare. The reasons were complex and some scholars still think it is William Shakespeare. The date of the painting fixes the age that Shakespeare would have been had he been the subject and the consensus among one group of scholars is that the man in the picture seems too young and too rich. Yet it is a compelling picture and resembles the one known portrait of Shakespeare quite strongly. However, it may well be the picture of a young actor/writer known to Shakespeare, whose name escapes me. Art historians can "place" the painting with astonishing accuracy as to where it was likely painted and have some interesting theories about the painter.
There is no doubt of the painting as far as how old it is, where it was painted, etc., even the kind of wood the panel is made from and where the tree it was cut from was probably grown. Someone paid a pretty penny to have it made. The interest of the book for me was the fascinating description of the work of the various art experts and historians and those expert in clothing of the period, and those who knew the names of all the actors and playwrights in London at the time, etc. The paper that the label is made from, the ink that was used, every clue that could be tested was tested, and at no point did the painting fail a test. Except the one for which there can be no positive answer: is it William Shakespeare or not? Maybe one day someone will unearth the painter's receipt book and see it written down: "today was paid by Bill Shakspere for portrat of himself" or something of that nature. Or maybe the receipt will have been to "Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, for pic. of his latest paramour. . . ."
I believe the book mentioned above about the "lost Carveggio" is a similar detective story and I look forward to reading it.
Dig deeper.
-
Impenitent
- Throw me a rope.
- Posts: 7260
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:13 am
- Location: Deep in Oz
-
truehobbit
- Cute, cuddly and dangerous to know
- Posts: 6019
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:52 am
- Contact:
Thanks for humouring my curiosity, vison!
I can't disagree with anything you said
- the aspects of dating the picture are really interesting, I agree, and I'm glad you also mentioned that one can't be sure unless something like the receipt were found. I agree such studies are fascinating, unless they too obviously try to reach some goal (that just makes me doubt too much to keep up interest).
As to the smile - I agree that a toothy smile would have been rude (like I said above, I think it's an invention of the US glamour industry, though I'm not sure why they would come up with it) - but I think that's the very reason people were not shown that way, quite irrespective of the quality of their teeth.
So, the question would be if bad teeth are the really the origin of that interpretation of 'showing teeth' = 'rude'.
I'm having trouble believing that. It took European society a long time to become even refined enough not to do some things we today consider as gross, so it's hard to imagine that seeing teeth or an open mouth should have been considered so appalling so early on (the "no smile"-style I think is as old as portraiture). I'd rather think that a broad grin would have been considered rude for other reasons than showing bad teeth - like you said, negative characteristics of the bearer are a possibility and much more likely IMO.
I can't disagree with anything you said
- the aspects of dating the picture are really interesting, I agree, and I'm glad you also mentioned that one can't be sure unless something like the receipt were found. I agree such studies are fascinating, unless they too obviously try to reach some goal (that just makes me doubt too much to keep up interest).As to the smile - I agree that a toothy smile would have been rude (like I said above, I think it's an invention of the US glamour industry, though I'm not sure why they would come up with it) - but I think that's the very reason people were not shown that way, quite irrespective of the quality of their teeth.
So, the question would be if bad teeth are the really the origin of that interpretation of 'showing teeth' = 'rude'.
I'm having trouble believing that. It took European society a long time to become even refined enough not to do some things we today consider as gross, so it's hard to imagine that seeing teeth or an open mouth should have been considered so appalling so early on (the "no smile"-style I think is as old as portraiture). I'd rather think that a broad grin would have been considered rude for other reasons than showing bad teeth - like you said, negative characteristics of the bearer are a possibility and much more likely IMO.
It's true that without having even seen the books I shouldn't assume that they aren't up to scientific standards. It's just that I doubt by profession, and from seeing the huge market for historic revelations of all kinds, and I think that the more spectacular a "discovery" is, the more it can be assumed that it's wishful thinking on the part of the author. Never think that just because something got printed as a book, there must be something to it!Mossy wrote:but there's no need to assume that they are wrong or baseless suppositions right off the bat.
but being a cheerful hobbit he had not needed hope, as long as despair could be postponed.
-
ToshoftheWuffingas
- Posts: 1579
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:34 pm
I have always been interested in the portrait by Karel van Mander of two chess players. It never seems to be reproduced. One figure is unmistakeably Ben Jonson, Shakespeare's friend. The other is a young man with Shakespearian features. The portrait was badly restored about a hundred years ago and has had a somewhat mysterious life. I believe it is currently locked away in some US bank vault.
-
ToshoftheWuffingas
- Posts: 1579
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:34 pm
Many scholars believe that Shakespeare had some military service.
As for the "theories" that Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare, about all a person can do is wonder why people get drawn to these weirdnesses. We don't know overly much about the man, but we certainly know enough to know who he was.
There was an article in the Sun recently by one of these birds and, as usual, it depended heavily on "secret cryptics" and anagrams and outright fabrications. The continued insistence by one guy in particular that an aristocrat like, say, the Earl of Oxford, "couldn't" be a playwright due to some notion of gentlemanly superiority betrays a stunning lack of knowledge of the time.
As for the "theories" that Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare, about all a person can do is wonder why people get drawn to these weirdnesses. We don't know overly much about the man, but we certainly know enough to know who he was.
There was an article in the Sun recently by one of these birds and, as usual, it depended heavily on "secret cryptics" and anagrams and outright fabrications. The continued insistence by one guy in particular that an aristocrat like, say, the Earl of Oxford, "couldn't" be a playwright due to some notion of gentlemanly superiority betrays a stunning lack of knowledge of the time.
Dig deeper.
-
ToshoftheWuffingas
- Posts: 1579
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:34 pm
Yet I believe one of Jonson's plays has an aristocratic character producing literary material under a pseudonym. I can't quote it though. 
I read a book once (John Michel's Who Wrote Shakespeare?) that listed all the main contenders including the Stratford Shakespeare with arguments for and against each one and I came away scratching my head. I never had any truck with ideas about cryptic clues or that only a nobleman would be intelligent or cultured enough and still don't.
Some of the biographical details of the contenders match the plots too closely. The trouble is that they are not all the same candidate. One idea that seemed reasonable was that Shakespeare was the great impresario, collecting plays and putting them on. His name stuck in the same way as we speak of PJ's LOTR.
And then on the other hand Jonson, his friend and colleague, talks about Shakespeare lovingly after his death and scolds him for writing a particular line in Julius Caesar.
My position after all this is that I don't know. There is something imprecise about the whole business.
My word though but that period was fascinating.
I read a book once (John Michel's Who Wrote Shakespeare?) that listed all the main contenders including the Stratford Shakespeare with arguments for and against each one and I came away scratching my head. I never had any truck with ideas about cryptic clues or that only a nobleman would be intelligent or cultured enough and still don't.
Some of the biographical details of the contenders match the plots too closely. The trouble is that they are not all the same candidate. One idea that seemed reasonable was that Shakespeare was the great impresario, collecting plays and putting them on. His name stuck in the same way as we speak of PJ's LOTR.
And then on the other hand Jonson, his friend and colleague, talks about Shakespeare lovingly after his death and scolds him for writing a particular line in Julius Caesar.
My position after all this is that I don't know. There is something imprecise about the whole business.
My word though but that period was fascinating.
Considering that it was 400 years ago, it's not surprising that things are a little cloudy.
I remember one biography of Shakespeare that I really enjoyed, it was by Peter Quennel (not sure of the spelling). He had no doubt of who he was writing about! Neither did the authors of any of the other books about him that I've read over the years.
One argument compels me to believe Shakespeare WAS Shakespeare and that is the genius so plain in his works. No man who could write what Shakespeare wrote would hide his light under a bushel. He must have known -- he HAD to have known --- what masterpieces he created!!! It is beyond any reasonable belief, in my eyes, to think that such a brilliant and creative mind would have wanted to stay in the shadows. I don't say that Shakespeare "knew" his works would be loved and enjoyed 400 years later, but I think he knew perfectly well that he had written great works. His poetry, aside from his plays, is not so fabulous, by and large. But those plays!!!! The man was a man for the ages, and it is beyond me why people try to tear him down.
I remember one biography of Shakespeare that I really enjoyed, it was by Peter Quennel (not sure of the spelling). He had no doubt of who he was writing about! Neither did the authors of any of the other books about him that I've read over the years.
One argument compels me to believe Shakespeare WAS Shakespeare and that is the genius so plain in his works. No man who could write what Shakespeare wrote would hide his light under a bushel. He must have known -- he HAD to have known --- what masterpieces he created!!! It is beyond any reasonable belief, in my eyes, to think that such a brilliant and creative mind would have wanted to stay in the shadows. I don't say that Shakespeare "knew" his works would be loved and enjoyed 400 years later, but I think he knew perfectly well that he had written great works. His poetry, aside from his plays, is not so fabulous, by and large. But those plays!!!! The man was a man for the ages, and it is beyond me why people try to tear him down.
Dig deeper.
-
ToshoftheWuffingas
- Posts: 1579
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:34 pm
No argument from me there. Those texts are astonishing. What is strange is that period is well recorded with an intense competitive vigorous and appreciative literary world and we have these texts and you would think that there could be no question at all. How much can we blame the paranoid McCarthyite political atmosphere, full of plots and suspicion? I want to believe in the Stratford Shakespeare and much of me still does but the questions puzzle me.But those plays!!!! The man was a man for the ages, and it is beyond me why people try to tear him down.
-
Impenitent
- Throw me a rope.
- Posts: 7260
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:13 am
- Location: Deep in Oz
No argument from me either.
The contention that Marlowe reincarnated as Shakespeare is unlikely but is not so very far fetched as all that, though. The biographical facts as we know them don't make it impossible and the stuff I have read about it intrigued me enough to prompt me to read Marlowe's plays and then Shakespeare's in order to see what the Marlowe-is-Shakespeare crowd were talking about.
Conclusion: Intriguing idea but I don't believe.
The contention that Marlowe reincarnated as Shakespeare is unlikely but is not so very far fetched as all that, though. The biographical facts as we know them don't make it impossible and the stuff I have read about it intrigued me enough to prompt me to read Marlowe's plays and then Shakespeare's in order to see what the Marlowe-is-Shakespeare crowd were talking about.
Conclusion: Intriguing idea but I don't believe.
Mornings wouldn't suck so badly if they came later in the day.
Smiles
Some people smiled for their pictures!
St. Therese of Lisieux, for instance
http://www.traditioninaction.org/religi ... herese.jpg
This site has some of the existant photographs of her, though false color has been added.
Another site without the color.
I don't think that photography goes back much further than these pictures. The one of her as a child was taken in 1881. She died 16 years later (1897). We have over 2 dozen photographs of her, I think. The pictures of her in the convent were taken by her sister (also a Carmelite) who had brought the camera with her when she joined. I know that one of the "famous" poses of her in the garden involved her sister asking her to use the same smile she had as a child.
Obviously, she isn't showing her teeth. But just as obviously, she is smiling - she isn't dour! I didn't find a complete gallery, unfortunately, but if you look at pictures of the other women there, you'll see some examples of traditional dourness. I imagine the dourness was in part due to the amount of time spent sitting still - no candid shots, all posed....but also a cultural staidness that is absent today.
....
Well, I started this post about 5 hours ago, so I should post it... I'm not sure I remember what it says, so enjoy!
St. Therese of Lisieux, for instance
http://www.traditioninaction.org/religi ... herese.jpg
This site has some of the existant photographs of her, though false color has been added.
Another site without the color.
I don't think that photography goes back much further than these pictures. The one of her as a child was taken in 1881. She died 16 years later (1897). We have over 2 dozen photographs of her, I think. The pictures of her in the convent were taken by her sister (also a Carmelite) who had brought the camera with her when she joined. I know that one of the "famous" poses of her in the garden involved her sister asking her to use the same smile she had as a child.
Obviously, she isn't showing her teeth. But just as obviously, she is smiling - she isn't dour! I didn't find a complete gallery, unfortunately, but if you look at pictures of the other women there, you'll see some examples of traditional dourness
. I imagine the dourness was in part due to the amount of time spent sitting still - no candid shots, all posed....but also a cultural staidness that is absent today. ....
Well, I started this post about 5 hours ago, so I should post it... I'm not sure I remember what it says, so enjoy!