27-01-2020, 09:49 AM
27-01-2020, 09:49 AM
28-01-2020, 10:20 PM
My goodness! I've only scanned the posts, but has no one mentioned the VMs cosmos? The 'Oresme' illustration still remains the best match and it is was created in Paris about 1410. The 'de Metz' ms is the second best match and it was created in Paris between 1425-1449. And the de Metz ms also contains the "woman in a fish's mouth" illustration.
If the VMs critter has a recognizable resemblance to the fleece in the Order of the Golden Fleece (Toison d'Or) medallion, as several have said prior to my investigations, then the dating is probably after 1430. And also connected with the history of the Duchy of Burgundy under the rule of Philip the Good, who was duke from 1419 to 1467. Other material posted recently supports a Burgundian connection.
As a putative "creator" of the VMs, for the sake of discussion, let me propose the following person, her name may not be recorded, but she was known to history as Madame d"Or.
If the VMs critter has a recognizable resemblance to the fleece in the Order of the Golden Fleece (Toison d'Or) medallion, as several have said prior to my investigations, then the dating is probably after 1430. And also connected with the history of the Duchy of Burgundy under the rule of Philip the Good, who was duke from 1419 to 1467. Other material posted recently supports a Burgundian connection.
As a putative "creator" of the VMs, for the sake of discussion, let me propose the following person, her name may not be recorded, but she was known to history as Madame d"Or.
29-01-2020, 06:36 AM
The problem with this, and in fact with most image comparisons, is that this is not strong evidence for several reasons.
To start with a more reliable one: the zodiac cycle. The judgement from an authority has some weight, and still it allows a very wide range of dates - about a century.
However, most others are coming from people who are not experts in the field and have only seen a fraction of all surviving examples. For the Oresme illustration, how certain can we be that there are no extant earlier ones? That there are no lost earlier ones?
For others: how certain can we be that the observed feature is actually an indicator of style, delimiting either the time frame or the region?
I am, as so often, highly skeptical.
To start with a more reliable one: the zodiac cycle. The judgement from an authority has some weight, and still it allows a very wide range of dates - about a century.
However, most others are coming from people who are not experts in the field and have only seen a fraction of all surviving examples. For the Oresme illustration, how certain can we be that there are no extant earlier ones? That there are no lost earlier ones?
For others: how certain can we be that the observed feature is actually an indicator of style, delimiting either the time frame or the region?
I am, as so often, highly skeptical.
29-01-2020, 07:49 AM
To be able to date a feature, there must be a trend. And for that you need a lot of examples. So Oresme does not help us much.
However, the Zodiac does not allow for a as wide a range of a century. Based on the clothing (a very powerful marker - fashion) you can narrow it down to 30 years, or 50 if you count outliers.
It's not because we are not, and will apparently never be, "experts", that we may not rely on our own observations. This reminds me of medieval times when people were encouraged to distrust their own eyes when they observed something that was in conflict with scripture.
However, the Zodiac does not allow for a as wide a range of a century. Based on the clothing (a very powerful marker - fashion) you can narrow it down to 30 years, or 50 if you count outliers.
It's not because we are not, and will apparently never be, "experts", that we may not rely on our own observations. This reminds me of medieval times when people were encouraged to distrust their own eyes when they observed something that was in conflict with scripture.
29-01-2020, 08:16 AM
As far as crossbows go... if we can trust the basic proportions of the drawing (even if the details are not completely accurate), then it is not the earlier style, which was made of natural materials and was quite thick in the middle and toward the tips. The materials did not allow for fine curves at the tips.
New technology made it possible to make the prod (the front part of the bow) thinner, and to create a greater curve at the tips (as drawn in the VMS), which made it easier to securely attach the cord/string.
We cannot completely trust the VMS image. Not only is the drawing very small, but the nut is out of position for typical bows of the time. Also... who knows how many illustrators grafted the tips of regular bows onto drawings of crossbows because the longbow or shortbow shape is more iconic and familiar?
But... if the VMS drawing can be trusted, it's not a 13th century bow, it is more likely to be later (unless it's China, where they had curved tips centuries earlier than the west). Usually it was the crossbows with metal prods/laths that had significant curvature at the tips, although some of the old Greek bows that were reinforced with wraps were more slender with gently curving tips (but not a quick curve at the ends).
New technology made it possible to make the prod (the front part of the bow) thinner, and to create a greater curve at the tips (as drawn in the VMS), which made it easier to securely attach the cord/string.
We cannot completely trust the VMS image. Not only is the drawing very small, but the nut is out of position for typical bows of the time. Also... who knows how many illustrators grafted the tips of regular bows onto drawings of crossbows because the longbow or shortbow shape is more iconic and familiar?
But... if the VMS drawing can be trusted, it's not a 13th century bow, it is more likely to be later (unless it's China, where they had curved tips centuries earlier than the west). Usually it was the crossbows with metal prods/laths that had significant curvature at the tips, although some of the old Greek bows that were reinforced with wraps were more slender with gently curving tips (but not a quick curve at the ends).
29-01-2020, 08:34 AM
Hi Koen,
we may want to trust your eyes for the things we have seen, but how about the things we have not seen?
How about literature that we have not read - do not even know exists?
we may want to trust your eyes for the things we have seen, but how about the things we have not seen?
How about literature that we have not read - do not even know exists?
29-01-2020, 09:26 AM
It is true that, given a very specific subject, we are unlikely to reach the same level of expertise as a professional scholar on the subject. We are almost forced to go "wide" and interdisciplinary, so whenever a specialist can add something about their field, this should be welcomed. In fact I wish we had more of those. If only a scholar of medieval French dialects could help us with the month names, for example.
But with the VM, expert statements come in various forms. As soon as the expert moves outside of the narrow bounds of that which they are qualified for, those parts of the statement don't carry as much weight (otherwise we should all purchase a copy of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. to finally learn its secrets).
To tie this back to the subject at hand: as far as I'm aware, we don't have a statement yet about the clothing in the Zodiac section by someone specialized in Medieval fashion. But from our own research we know that it belongs to the first decades of the 15th century.
But with the VM, expert statements come in various forms. As soon as the expert moves outside of the narrow bounds of that which they are qualified for, those parts of the statement don't carry as much weight (otherwise we should all purchase a copy of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. to finally learn its secrets).
To tie this back to the subject at hand: as far as I'm aware, we don't have a statement yet about the clothing in the Zodiac section by someone specialized in Medieval fashion. But from our own research we know that it belongs to the first decades of the 15th century.
29-01-2020, 10:49 AM
(29-01-2020, 09:26 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.we don't have a statement yet about the clothing in the Zodiac section by someone specialized in Medieval fashion
I know that I have not been very forthcoming on this, but there is this, from 2014:
Quote:Some initial comments from **, who has consulted some experts in his field. A medieval costumes expert (Roger Wieck from the Morgan Library) dates two of them to the 1420’s. This includes specifically the Virgo and Sagittarius illustrations in the Zodiac section. These costume styles would not have been largely known in the following decades / centuries, . . .
29-01-2020, 10:58 AM
Thanks Rene, I don't remember having read this statement. In a way we are lucky that the Zodiac fashion choices belong to short-lived trends.
31-01-2020, 12:21 AM
Following the proposal that VMs f68v3 is a cosmic representation, then all medieval cosmic images are open to investigation.
William Newbold called this illustration a cosmic representation. [Right idea; wrong cosmos.]
The majority of medieval cosmic representations are based on a structure of multiple concentric circles representing the planetary spheres as they were thought to exist at the time. This is clearly not the structure of the VMs cosmic representation and it doesn't take an expert to see that. All these images can be excluded from the comparison.
It does take a modicum of attention to examine the VMs image and get past the visual appearance and to describe the underlying structure. That structure is as follows. The central Earth contains an inverted T-O structure. The Earth is surrounded by stars. All of this is contained within a circular cosmic boundary.
The search for relevant cosmic illustrations can now be focused on medieval images possessing a similar cosmic structure. Two matching examples were demonstrated in 2014 by E. Velinska. These were the ' Oresme' illustration (BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23) and the 'de Metz' image (Harley 334 fol. 29). Both of these cosmic representations were produced after their authors had died. Nicole Oresme died in 1382 and that illustration was produced about 1410. Gossuin de Metz lived in the 1200s and that text was produced between 1425 and 1449. Both illustrations were produced in Paris. The few other cosmic images in texts by Oresme (BNF Fr. 1082) do not have the same structure. Various cosmic images in texts by de Metz show a wide variety of constructions including the use of multiple planetary spheres.
The key to the similarity of these cosmic structures with that of the VMs is clearly not based on the subject of the comparison, nor is it the authorial source. It is instead the source of the illustrations' production. In addition, the source of this uncommon cosmic structure is chronologically quite closely coincident with the Carbon-14 dating for the VMs parchment.
Does this mean that everything is already known? Of course not. On the other hand, it isn't necessary to have every dead horse in order to demonstrate equine evolution. If there is something better, let's see it. Furthermore, the similarity of structure is objective, while similarity of appearance for other elements could be subjective. How is it that the VMs cosmos has the same unusual structure as this pair of Paris representations? What are the other, better possibilities??
William Newbold called this illustration a cosmic representation. [Right idea; wrong cosmos.]
The majority of medieval cosmic representations are based on a structure of multiple concentric circles representing the planetary spheres as they were thought to exist at the time. This is clearly not the structure of the VMs cosmic representation and it doesn't take an expert to see that. All these images can be excluded from the comparison.
It does take a modicum of attention to examine the VMs image and get past the visual appearance and to describe the underlying structure. That structure is as follows. The central Earth contains an inverted T-O structure. The Earth is surrounded by stars. All of this is contained within a circular cosmic boundary.
The search for relevant cosmic illustrations can now be focused on medieval images possessing a similar cosmic structure. Two matching examples were demonstrated in 2014 by E. Velinska. These were the ' Oresme' illustration (BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23) and the 'de Metz' image (Harley 334 fol. 29). Both of these cosmic representations were produced after their authors had died. Nicole Oresme died in 1382 and that illustration was produced about 1410. Gossuin de Metz lived in the 1200s and that text was produced between 1425 and 1449. Both illustrations were produced in Paris. The few other cosmic images in texts by Oresme (BNF Fr. 1082) do not have the same structure. Various cosmic images in texts by de Metz show a wide variety of constructions including the use of multiple planetary spheres.
The key to the similarity of these cosmic structures with that of the VMs is clearly not based on the subject of the comparison, nor is it the authorial source. It is instead the source of the illustrations' production. In addition, the source of this uncommon cosmic structure is chronologically quite closely coincident with the Carbon-14 dating for the VMs parchment.
Does this mean that everything is already known? Of course not. On the other hand, it isn't necessary to have every dead horse in order to demonstrate equine evolution. If there is something better, let's see it. Furthermore, the similarity of structure is objective, while similarity of appearance for other elements could be subjective. How is it that the VMs cosmos has the same unusual structure as this pair of Paris representations? What are the other, better possibilities??