Anton is f49v. In my opinion, pagination is also written in this style. 1450-1505g.
Labels for notebooks Q19, Q20 made later.
Another point. Through numbering of pages was done by the owner of the manuscript, and not by a simple copyist (artist, bookbinder), since he had the right to decide what should be in the manuscript and what should not. If the first argument (repeated numbering f67r1) can be explained with a binding error, then the second case (I publish this for the first time) is much more interesting.
Turn to page 15r. Its numbering is written by the hand of the same person, but with fresh ink after re-checking the contents of the manuscript. During the initial page numbering, the owner did not notice any compromising record (cipher?) on the marginalia field f15v. The owner shortened (cut off this entry) the page by 15 mm. As a result of this, the number 5 disappeared on f15r. The owner washed off the remnants of the number “1” and gave the new number “15” with fresh ink. (It’s better to watch the old scan. The pressure tape will not interfere)
(25-01-2020, 10:45 PM)Wladimir D Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Anton is f49v
Yes thanks, that's what I meant
(25-01-2020, 10:45 PM)Wladimir D Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Turn to page 15r.
Yes that's something interesting, I'll create a separate thread.
(25-01-2020, 05:15 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
Regarding other objects for dating, there are also arabic digits from 1 to 5 written by the original scribe, I forgot in which folio.
Yes, thanks for bringing that up. I've searched for matches for those, as well. Much more difficult because there are so few, but there are still some characteristics that can be noted.
Okay, for zodiacs...
I searched my files. I have more than 600 zodiac series that are more-or-less complete. A few of them are duplicates in the sense that there was more than one in the same manuscript BUT only some of these are similar to each other. Sometimes the "duplicate" is actually a variation of the other one.
If I separate out the ones that have characteristics that my research suggests are thematically related, I get about 21 hits. There would be a couple more, but some of them are very similar in most ways and yet will have one that diverges (e.g., nude male twins instead of two affectionate clothed figures, whether male and male or male and female), 2-legged archer, and non-scorpion Scorpius. This is a relatively small number but the date range is somewhat surprising in that it originates quite early...
The date range for this thematic group ranges from c. 830 to the early 1500s. The ones from the late 1300s until 1503 comprise about half.
The one from c. 830 has all the right elements except that there is a figure holding the scales and the twins are male. By c. 1170s, the no-figure Libra exists but the twins are still male (I have posted most of these on my series of zodiac blogs).
There are several from circa late-1200s and early/mid-1300s that are similar but twins are still male and on one they are behind shields (which I'm pretty sure is a related but different subgroup).
By c. 1300, we have all the right elements, including male and female Gemini (the Claricia Psalter, one of my favorities, which I have posted several times) and Losbuch (Ser. nova 2652, later 1300s) which is incomplete but which has the right elements except that the scorpion is probably meant to be a real scorpion, but it may be significant that it has a romantic male/female couple. Graz 287 (late 1300s? c. 1400?) has the right elements except a hand holds the scales.
So the majority of those that are very close on several counts are from about 1300 to about 1405 (not counting the VMS).
For a while, I believed that the Crossbow Sagittarius in Österreichische Nationalbibliothek – cod. 1842 (originally discussed You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.) could date to the end of the XIV Century. Then Rene pointed out You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. that dates it to one of 1407, 1418 or 1429.
Years ago I collected Crossbow Sagittarius images in a pdf I posted You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.. In addition to the incorrect dating of Cod.1842, I now doubt that the two early crossbowman-capstones in the PDF belong to zodiac cycles.
If Cod.1842 dates to 1429, the earliest known crossbow-Sagittarius in a manuscript is the one in You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. (1425-28), that I think was originally pointed out by Rene. This manuscript has the date 1425 in You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. and 1428 You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.: in this case, things are as certain as they can be.
It was Prof. Ewa Sniezynska-Stolot (via You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.) who, in 2001, pointed out the relevance of this motif for the dating of the illustrations.
Thans, Marco. It's a shame that there are so few crossbow Sagittarii from the early period, this means that our dating necessarily relies on little more than one family of images. Still it is interesting that the two earliest examples fall within the same three decades. Cod.Sang.827 even has the same kind of fashion.
Going by the archer's dress, I would also think the other MS (cod. 1842) could be of the late 14th century, but the catalogue page seems convincing.
JKP: do you think any specific aspects point to a certain date range more so than others?
I have a draft blog dating back to March 16, 2016 that I simply cannot find time to finish. (I have 42 draft blogs, I'm wayyyyy behind. There just aren't enough hours in the day to do the research AND write it up, as well.)
So I'll post the related images here instead, without all the accompanying research...
It's my belief that the illustrator/painter of ÖNB Cod. 1842 may be the same one who painted the archers in one of the versions of the Baths of Pozzuoli.
Here is the illustrative style of the zodiac cycle. Look in particular at the green paint and pink ring around the archer, the way the faces and clothes are drawn, with darker outlines and slightly shaded fill:
[
attachment=3935]
Now look at the posture, the colors (using pink in this way is not especially common and it's a particular shade of pink combined in a certain way with green), and the style of drawing of the archers. These small figures are above the bathers in the Baths of Pozzuoli in Morgan G.74, which is thought to be from Italy, ca. 1400. If this is the same illustrator, then there might be a connection between approximate date (and approximate location, although this is less certain) with the zodiac in ÖNB 1842:
[
attachment=3934]
(Also, in the Morgan manuscript there are lots of tents, arches under the bathing pools, a pond full of critters, and many other themes reminiscent of the VMS).
The background, origin, and dates of both these manuscripts are somewhat vague, but at least they are in the same general ballpark, datewise. However, if one is thought to be from Italy and one is thought to be from Prague, with neither one completely certain, then there may be some interesting background possibly connecting them.
And, of course, the reason I wanted to blog about it is because if there IS a connection, then we have one illustrator involved with two different themes (bathing and zodiacs) that may be connected in the VMS (plus it might help firm up the vague date for the crossbow).
(25-01-2020, 03:23 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (25-01-2020, 02:08 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is important because an expert has already said that John Dee did the foliation.
Which expert?
Andrew Watson, palaeographer.
There are many references to his statement available through Google Search. I think at some point years ago I also saw his exact? words quoted by someone. They're probably in my files, but I don't have time to look right now. He is mentioned frequently, however, at least since the time of Brumbaugh.
(25-01-2020, 02:08 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Last night I put some effort into figuring out a way to present it (this has taken a long time, it's not easy data to organize for a lay audience) and finally came up with something I think might work. I don't know if it will be the final form, but it's something someone without palaeographic experience could look through and (hopefully) understand.
Looking forward to it! Perhaps the most helpful thing (IMHO) that could be done to advance VM study.