For a minute I thought you meant Trigger, but I got the wrong horse as usual - the Lone Ranger's mount was Silver (as in "Hi, ho, Silver!"}.

EDIT: The following has been mentioned by nordmann upthread - it was in 2016, so perhaps my repetition of the information may be forgiven!

Vizard, or visard, masks were worn in the 16th and 17th centuries to prevent sunburn on the face. They were made of black velvet and had holes for the eyes and the mouth. They made the wearer look very odd indeed - the extreme Protestants thought they were a sign of whoredom, but then they thought everything was. One such mask was found at Daventry.




When they use to ride abroad, they have visors (sic) made of velvet... wherewith they cover all their faces, having holes made in them against their eyes, whereout they look so that if a man that knew not their guise before, should chance to meet one of them he would think he met a monster or a devil: for face he can see none, but two broad holes against her eyes, with glasses in them.

— Phillip Stubbes, Anatomy of Abuses (1583)

Yes Temp, "sunburn" for one of "blauw bloed" (blue blood) was nearly a condamnation to being a peasant, each day in the fields in the sun...
I heard this morning from a doctor, who studied Spanish, laughing...the term: "sangre azul". I just checked it and indeed the same meaning as "blue blood"...

Kind regards from Paul.

Temperance wrote:

We are all actors, are we not, and present our "persona" - our mask -  to the world, with varying degrees of success. Interesting that Jung used the Latin word "persona" to describe the ego - how we wish to be perceived by others.

Very good points Temp and I loved the Oscar Wilde quote too.

Pseudonyms and internet handles etc are also sorts of masks. I remember having a discussion with a chap on the BBC messageboards who used his full name (let’s call him ‘John Brown’) on his account and wore the fact proudly as a badge and berated others for not doing so. Although his was undoubtedly an honourable position he seemed to be entirely missing the point. Adopting a ‘persona’ affords the individual scope for expression in a way which might otherwise not be possible. It can often be the opposite of deceit. One’s ‘real’ persona may actually inhibit honest expression because the real persona is often just as compromised and invented as the adopted one. For instance, a cursory glance at Facebook and Twitter etc will show how family, friends, colleagues and other acquaintances can quickly undermine various users attempts at expressing themselves. And that’s not even mentioning pressures to conform or to tow the line or dumb down etc.

The likes of Banksy, for example, may well have been compromised early on had, say, the artist’s real name and face been published followed by 'reliable' tabloid interviews with ‘cousins’ and ‘schoolfriends’. Then there is the long list or female writers such as George Eliot, George Sand, Isak Dinesen and Robert Galbraith etc, who employed male pen names in order to overcome public preconceptions in publishing. Occasionally there was the reverse phenomenon such as the case of Polly Baker, a pseudonym employed by Benjamin Franklin in the 1740s to expose the iniquity of a penal system which penalised an unwed mother while the ‘father’ of her child remained beyond the law.

I wonder. That velvet mask - was that what the "man in the iron mask" actually wearing? The "Iron" bit seems to be Voltaire's version, but not well substantiated afaik.

Some time back I also went through a phase of having comments appear mysteriously in duplicate.

At the other end of the spectrum to the well-crafted masks for balls and the carnival masks I suppose if we are out of lockdown by autumn the cheap and cheerful masks that youngsters wear for trick or treat at Hallowe'en may appear in the shops.

Green George wrote:

I wonder. That velvet mask - was that what the "man in the iron mask" actually wearing? The "Iron" bit seems to be Voltaire's version, but not well substantiated afaik.

Yes indeed, I believe it was originally referred to as simply a mask, of unspecified material but generally assumed at the time to be of black velvet (velours in French). It was Voltaire, writing over fifty years after the events who suggested it was a mask of iron, this idea being subsequently popularised by Dumas as a section of a longer novel originally entitled "Dix Ans plus tard ou le Vicomte de Bragelonne" but which was subsequently translated into English as "The Man in the Iron Mask" - "L'Homme au Masque de Fer".

Voltaire's original confusion - if indeed he was confused rather than just exaggerating a good tale - may have come about because the French word velours, while meaning velvet, is also used to refer to the appearence of some surfaces, such as the soft, slightly hairy bloom on a ripe peach or on a child's cheek, but was also used for the blue-black, protective, anti-rust patina, that could be imparted on iron and steel (usually armour or weapons) by treating with acid. On iron this protective metallic black patina is primarily ferrous oxide, as opposed to undesirable crumbly red rust which is ferric oxide.

EDIT
In defence of Voltaire I have just found this, from a contemporary official chronicle of 1687 (it's from a French language wiki entry which unfortunately doesn't give an original reference and so it is difficult to verify, however I have no reason to believe it to be false) ... which for 4 September states that on that day Monsieur de Saint-Mars, by order of king Louis XIV, conducted an unknown prisoner to the Fort d'lsle Sainte-Marguerite in Provence, in a closed sedan chair, wearing a "mask of steel over his face": no-one knew who the man was and any that did were sworn to silence on pain of death:

« Personne ne sait qui il est ; il y a défense de dire son nom et ordre de le tuer s'il l'avait prononcé ; celui-ci était enfermé dans une chaise à porteurs ayant un masque d'acier sur le visage, et tout ce qu'on a pu savoir de Saint-Mars était que ce prisonnier était depuis de longues années à Pignerol, et que les gens, que le public croient mort, ne l'est pas. »

Of course the "masque d'acier" could have simply been any convenient military visored helmet, such as a close burgonet or a visored bascinet (although both these styles were by then well out of date). But if it was just a temporary measure while transporting the prisoner, why not just use a cloth bag?

In 1994, Miramax released a film version of Dumas' La Reine Margot. Isabelle Adjani, who played Margaret of Valois, wore a mask when she and her friend went out together for a night roaming around the French capital pretending to be prostitutes. In one such jaunt around Paris, she met the unfortunately named La Môle (sounds ridiculous when pronounced with a French accent) the man who, according to Dumas, replaced Henry de Guise in Margot's affections (not to be confused with Henry of Navarre whom Margot had married six days before). All rollicking good fun before the Massacre of Saint Bartholomew's Eve (organised by Margot's mum, Catherine de Medici, who didn't wear a mask) ruined everything for everyone. Here is Ms. Adjani managing to look absolutely gorgeous in her black vizard-type mask: she remembered to put that on, but seems to have forgotten her shift.

Not sure if Dumas mentions masks for the ladies in his actual 1845 novel.







Margot and friend.


EDIT: Perhaps he did: here is a poster for an earlier film (1954) of La Reine Margot.

As an aside ... and you know I'm ever one for the associated anecdotes ... but about that film whose poster you've added, Temp: it came out in 1954 and the female lead, as is stated in the above publicity, was Jeanne Moreau (born in 1928) who played the role of Queen Margot.

So, this is just to mention that as an actress Jeanne Moreau was still going strong decades later, well up until the mid-2000s and often still playing dominant royal female parts (eg. she played the central part of Mahout, the domineering and ever scheming Contesse d'Artois, in the renowned 2005 TV interpretation of Maurice Druon's series of historical novels collectively known as 'Les Rois Maudits'). Her last film performance was in 2015 as Thibault's grand-mother in the film 'Le talent de mes amis'. She died, aged 89, in July 2017.

PaulRyckier wrote:

"sunburn" for one of "blauw bloed" (blue blood) was nearly a condamnation to being a peasant, each day in the fields in the sun...
I heard this morning from a doctor, who studied Spanish, laughing...the term: "sangre azul". I just checked it and indeed the same meaning as "blue blood"...

There’s a story of an upper-class British Army officer during the Second Boer War witnessing English working-class squaddies bathing in a river and expressing surprise to discover that, under their uniforms, they possessed pale skin above their elbows and below their necks. The rise and fall of the fashion for suntans, beginning around 1920 (popularised by the likes of Douglas Fairbanks) and ending around 1990 (with the huge rise in skin cancer cases among Australasians) deserves a thread of its own. Those vizard-donning women in the 16th century were obviously ahead of their time. In the 2010s many European countries legislated to ban face coverings (i.e. burqas) in public places. Now it seems that in England it’s compulsory to wear something only 1 degree removed from a Balaclava helmet when entering a bank. Such are the roller-coaster times in which we live.  



Balaclava cap similar to those worn by soldiers during the Crimean War in the 1850s.

Yes Vizzer, childhood rememberings...

My mother knitted one for me, in grey if I remember well...



And they seem to say "bivakmuts" for it in Dutch and I know it is the right word, but we certainly said something others to it...and suddenly while typing the word springs to mind:

We said it in French "cagoule"



Kind regards, Paul.

PaulRyckier wrote:

My mother knitted one for me, in grey if I remember well... We said it in French "cagoule"

Only that's not quite how a 'cagoule' is now understood in modern French, nor indeed internationally. The word 'cagoule' has now become, at least since the 1980s, the general word amongst climbers/campers/hikers etc. for a simple one-piece, weatherproof, hooded, nylon-or-gortex-or-whatever, jacket/ensemble. For most people a 'cagoule' now just means any basic light-weight waterproof jacket - usually hooded, though not necessarily so. Accordingly it is the sort of thing that anyone venturing onto the hills should have in reserve for if the weather turns a bit nasty, and it certainly isn't generally knitten in wool.

Cher MM, I just remembered what we said in the time in Flemish, but I just downloaded it from French sites for the photos and "cagoule" was designated as our Flemish cagoule too

I first wanted to copy the photo from this site
http://www.leschouxverts.be/fr/bonnets-et-cagoules/691-reiff-cagoule-en-laine-uni.html
but it didn't work and then I tried with this one:
http://www.leschouxverts.be/fr/bonnets-et-cagoules/692-cagoule-enfant-en-laine-rayee-relax.html

Heureux de vous revoir cher MM. This afternoon I already thought that the site "Res Historica" was gone and that I never would be able to contact you again...

Warm regards from Paul.

Vizzer wrote:

Balaclava cap similar to those worn by soldiers during the Crimean War in the 1850s.

 
Vizzer, of course you have also the medieval balaclavas...I grew up with cartoons picturing medieval gents in balaclavas...






Kind regards from Paul.

Moved to head coverings thread.

Meles meles wrote:

Strictly that's called a mail coif, which went out of fashion for armour (replaced by the mail aventail) around the 14th century.

The civillian coif, typically made in linen took much the same form but often tied under the chin with straps/strings. It was worn by both men and women from about the 10th century, and though it went out of fashion for men in the 14th century, it continued in common use for women well into the 16th century, albeit often covered by a second, more elaborate hat/hood.



The simple medieval coif also gave rise to the chaperon, which was again a one-piece combined shoulder-cape and hood, but usually with a very long pointed hood which could be wound around the head or neck, or ornately piled on top.

   

You are right, MM. A "mail coif". I met it during my search...

And yes the "mail aventail"...What one learns here each day on this forum...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aventail



And also the "basinet"

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

Kind regards from Paul.

WW1 Vickers Machine Gun crew with gas masks:

Deleted - as I'm no longer sure who or what I'm replying to.

Which thread are we on, Paul ... is it about masks, or hats? And bear in mind there's already another thread which was started by Temp in 2016, to specifically discuss masks.

Res Historica - Masks

Or are we sadly just destined to keep repeating the same old stuff, again and again and again, like in some sort of nihilist play by Sartre?

Meles meles wrote:

Deleted ... Which thread are we on, Paul: is it about masks or hats? And bear in mind there's already another thread specifically discussing masks from 2016:

Res Historica - Masks

... or are we sadly just destined to keep repeating that same old stuff again and again and again?

 
Yes, MM you are right. And yes the thread about "head covering" is also something resembling older threads.

I will see what I can do to change the title to "head coverings due to the rituals of belief" (or something like that), what is perhaps a new approach. And without harming for your new reply of today.
BTW: I did already a lot of research for the "veil". I remember that I said to LiR that it was unbelievable on what "fundamentalist" sites one arrived when doing research for the "catholic veil" (fundamentalist Catholic I mean)

Kind regards from Paul.

Military but somewhat later - a WWI Tank crew mask/aventail/coif - to protect the wearer from flying bits of steel dislodged by rifle fire (which spalled the armour but didn't pierce it)

Thanks for pointing out the duplication, MM. I have now merged Temp's original topic on this subject with Priscilla's since they basically address the very same subject and invite the same input from members.

I'm not sure why the discussion deviated into stuff going on top of the head and not in front of the face - no good explanation was provided by those doing the deviating. But I won't delete these posts - those responsible can review their own input and delete or justify their off-topic stuff as they see fit.

As far as I can see from the conversation so far, masks - when not being worn as facial protection against germs or missiles - have traditionally been used either to disguise and/or hide people's individual identities when doing something perceived to lie outside of normal social conventions, or to project a particular identity that satisfies some communal demand within those conventions - be it that of shaman/high priest/witch doctor or simply "generic" belle/beau of the ball. Either way their use is most definitely a feature of social interaction - they have little point at all if not viewed from without as well as being looked through from within, and in most cases that have been so far highlighted here the presumption on the part of the wearer is that they will be regarded from without by more than one person when worn.

In the "What is Art?" topic earlier the subjects of unconscious projection by the artist of their personality as well as the absolute importance of first impressions within fractions of a second when assessing new visual input were discussed, and I feel this subject also lends itself to the same consideration. Masks, especially when tradition or custom sanctions or encourages their use, also appear to satisfy a very human impulse to "control the narrative" when visually interacting with others, be it as an actor assuming a false identity (including within religious ritual) or just wishing to deflect assessment of the self by others while retaining the freedom to do so oneself in relation to those others around one. The mask, no matter in what social context it is adopted, acts much more as a barrier to perception of the actual individual wearing it than it ever does as a conduit to aiding such perception.

Control of this perception process in the moment is therefore handed over to the person who wears the mask, if only temporarily and as it relates to first visual contact, and it is this aspect to the activity that personally intrigues me the most, speaking as it does of what is an obvious human tendency to subvert or disguise one's true nature and individuality when this is deemed an apposite approach to interaction with others. In that sense it is little different from the function of uniforms, ritual garb, and other projections through apparel to deflect the viewer into assumptions of inter-personal relationship based on advertised function and socially approved notions of power and authority rather than on assessment of the actual individual under that apparel. However the mask, denying visual access to that most telling human feature allowing such instant assessment, the face, seems to go one step further. And, since its adoption does not at all require mandatory subscription to any social code related to perceptions of authority and function but ultimately rests on the individual's own choice of projection - its nature and its timing - probably therefore provides valuable clues as to how and why such social codes reinforced through apparel actually originated.

Sincere apologies for rebooting Temp's  thread  on Masks- I did not check and that was remiss. Delighting  in the phrase 'controlling the narrative' used by nordmann above and direct all back to enjoying   his interesting post.

Deleted.

Deleted.

Temperance, I see now that you have deleted the in my eyes interesting take about Corona masks. Are they half masks for the lower part instead of the upper one?

Is it only I, who see now the attention attracted to the eyes? Many times attractive eyes   or is it only I who has that impression    ...







I have to say women have perhaps the advantage to be able to accentuate their eyes, while up to now the mores about men...



But again I have the impression that the look with mask can be adventageous as in my humble opinion...

Take now the example of our nowadays Prime Minister a bit in my opinion a more "common place?" (alledaags, doordeweeks) face...



But look:



And even without mask, she has that change of face when she smiles, as together with my other favourite PM...



Kind regards from Paul.

About hiding the true identity by the Venetian "Bauta" mask.





https://www.justposhmasks.com/blog/the-bauta/

From the site:

The claims about it being used to hide class, and social status, appear to come from the fact that the Bauta was frequently worn by the upper classes, including Kings and Princes, in Venetian society. Those not part of the upper classes would don this mask and interact freely with those from a different class, enabling servants to be mistaken for noblemen.
Unlike most of Europe during this time, the Republic of Venice was an economic machine and most were enjoying a high standard of living. With Venice being a small city, there were people of all classes with things to do, people to see, and not everyone wanted others to know the deals they were cutting, whether it was good or bad
The Bauta was also useful for the unscrupulous criminal, who could hide in plain sight. On the other hand, it was also useful for the Venetian police and spies to question informers, traitors, and even ordinary citizens, under the cover of the mask, without the fear of their true identity being revealed.
The claims it was worn to hide gender is definitely shown through history. This mask was originally only allowed to be worn by men but there are many historical paintings and antique prints of women wearing this mask, suggesting that women were, on occasions, behind this mask, and interacting in a predominately male environment. The richer women in society, who weren’t hiding their gender, would wear the Bauta to cover their jewellery as Venetian law, at this time, prohibited luxury.

Paul.