It might be interesting to compare the VMS nymphs to the human figures in Vaticanus gr. 1291, which is the closest known parallel to the rings of nymphs in the VMS:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
These seem much more naturally-proportioned than the VMS nymphs. The figures in the outer ring are clearly more than 4 heads tall. Even in the inner ring, where we do not see full bodies, the chin-to-navel distance appears to be larger than 1 head.
Dear all,
I know where similar conventions are found as regular conventions... I'm not sure why it has to be in manuscript art if the aim is to locate the place and time when such conventions operated, but with such limitation imposed, I'm afraid I can't help. The extant examples are in other media - statues, imagery on coins, gold work, even frescos. But - sorry - not manuscripts.
Sam - that example in Vat.Gr.1291 has been very often mentioned, but the similarity is a little illusory. What you're seeing in the inner tier of that manuscript's diagram is a relic of earlier practice and style.
The example has been raised again and again, for years. There's very little to it when the image is analysed in detail.
As of course, I finally felt someone had to do. So I did. In detail, with all the usual research and comparative matter.
Not that it made any difference...
But fyi:-
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Diane. The thing is that I know some of those other examples already, and I wanted to give others the chance to balance things out since I haven't found much in manuscripts. I have amulets, statuettes, coins, textiles, paintings, fresco... you know more or less which examples I'm aware of. Is there something I might be missing?
Edit: phone messed up font.
Also: there is at least one manuscript where you think the figures are similar to the nymphs. Maybe there are others we could learn something from.
Koen,
You mean the manuscript formerly known as Sassoon 823 (or Sasson 823)?
Its significance comes from its position in the whole net of indications - historical and iconographic - that the "nymphs" folios came from somewhere in what was once the Greco-Bactrian region, via the Black Sea, through the Aegean to Ibera.
Otherwise it's just a picture in a manuscript. And while the bodily proportions, the bellies, flat feet etc. are very like the 'nymphs', their heads are drawn to western expectations: they are not over-large.
Still -
Here's the latest post where I mention it:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
and here's one of the many that included my favourite illustration from that manuscript.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Koen - thanks for asking.
PS - the blog theme makes anything quoted into enormous font. Not my doing; I don't mean to scream at the reader.
(03-10-2016, 07:42 AM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Sam - that example in Vat.Gr.1291 has been very often mentioned, but the similarity is a little illusory. What you're seeing in the inner tier of that manuscript's diagram is a relic of earlier practice and style.
Well, right - I don't think the imagery in the VMS was copied from the Vat.gr.1291, more like the Vat.gr.1291 and the VMS are both based in the same (classical) artistic traditions.
Quote:The example has been raised again and again, for years. There's very little to it when the image is analysed in detail.
I don't know about this. It does seem to agree with the VMS on some fairly specific points, such as the types of poses it contains. Of course there are also many features of the VMS nymph rings that cannot be found in the Vat.gr.1291, as well as a wider variety of poses.
Quote:As of course, I finally felt someone had to do. So I did. In detail, with all the usual research and comparative matter.
Not that it made any difference...
But fyi:-
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Thanks. I will try to go through these in detail, but at a glance while much of it appears relevant I don't see anything that would make me think that the similarity to Vat.gr.1291 is a total coincidence.
In any case, even if the similarity is somehow a coincidence, it is still a striking similarity and therefore worth including in a study of proportions... wouldn't you agree?
Of course, Sam, I'd like to compare as much as possible, whatever could be relevant. I came up with an easy and consistent way to represent the comparison visually so I can handle whatever people think is worth testing - the more the merrier
Of course I have to stress that matching or not matching proportions does not prove or disprove anything. What I do try to argue is that the proportions of figures (like Diane says) can and should be taken into account as part of a comparative analysis. I hope that this small study has shown that yes, the proportions of the nymphs are unusual
but consistent.
(01-10-2016, 09:25 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The young man on top of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is 5.4 heads tall, which is a full head more than the median. He is the least "compact" figure I measured. It is interesting that the pen lines appear to betray some uncertainty or correcting around his rump.
I wonder if this "nymph" may have been distorted (relative to the VMS norm) for some reason relating to the way the text and illustrations are interlocked. Perhaps the illustrator realized he was going to need to leave enough room for five lines of text beneath the arms so he made the body a bit bigger than usual. This consideration wouldn't have affected the other nymphs you measured, since they aren't surrounded by blocks of text.
Another possibility to think about: something that I think was originally suggested by Philip Neal is that the VMS may be a copy of a work that was physically larger than the VMS itself. If so, then all of the images would have necessarily been scaled down. But as the VMS is quite small, this might have made it difficult to draw faces on the heads. So perhaps the heads were all increased in size relative to their bodies in order to make it a bit easier to draw faces.
(03-10-2016, 10:45 AM)Sam G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (01-10-2016, 09:25 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The young man on top of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is 5.4 heads tall, which is a full head more than the median. He is the least "compact" figure I measured. It is interesting that the pen lines appear to betray some uncertainty or correcting around his rump.
I wonder if this "nymph" may have been distorted (relative to the VMS norm) for some reason relating to the way the text and illustrations are interlocked. Perhaps the illustrator realized he was going to need to leave enough room for five lines of text beneath the arms so he made the body a bit bigger than usual. This consideration wouldn't have affected the other nymphs you measured, since they aren't surrounded by blocks of text.
My hypothesis is something very similar. I believe (as do many others) that this page was intended to be viewed next to You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. , and a connection between this man and the nymph top left on You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. needed to be expressed. That may be why he was made a bit taller. It's a shame that the edge of You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. is obscured, because I believe this would be more obvious otherwise..
About bodies being scaled down: that sounds plausible, and it also ties in to what Searcher said about a purpose for large heads - that they convey more individuality.
However, I think Diane is right to read it as a cultural indicator rather than rescaling for necessity. There are other strange things about the nymphs, like bendy arms, bumpy heads and wide thighs. Furthermore, there is the consistency of these aspects, and the four-part division, which to me seem to argue against simple downscaling of the body compared to the head.
That is, unless the downscaling was done with a lot of care. If the figures were uniform (i.e. classical?) to begin with and they were resized according to some rules, it is conceivable.
It basically boils down to two options for me:
a) The proportions are meaningful and/or somehow "constructed". That is why they are unusually consistent.
Consistency through construct.
b) This was just the way someone along the line of copying was used to drawing the human figure.
Consistency through custom.
(03-10-2016, 11:23 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.However, I think Diane is right to read it as a cultural indicator rather than rescaling for necessity.
If I understand correctly, Diane reads it as cultural indicator (in her case anything but European) based on her own assumption that disproportionately big heads were never found in Latin Europe. This is a false assumption. Romanesque art has plenty of examples of disproportionate heads (and not only in illuminated manuscript). My example is from the Modena Cathedral, 12th century .
[
attachment=694][
attachment=695]
Ellie - Perhaps I should have said "art style" indicator instead of "cultural indicator"
I can only speak for myself in this case, but here's my take on it:
- As we have seen in the lion thread, the distinctions between Europe/non-Europe and Ancient/Medieval are not always as strict as we may think. Medieval Europeans used plenty of older, foreign imagery.
- Apart from that, there can be convergent evolution.
- The fact that it indicates a style or cultural aspect does not mean that it points to a specific one. Big heads are found in European art, in Carolingian manuscripts, in Coptic art, Roman, Persian, African, Bactrian...
- It's not just big heads - it's the consistent division of the body in four roughly equal parts marked by chin, navel and knee. Like Searcher found out, these are apparently the proportions of a one-year-old.
Like I said, I hope to find examples in European art as well, because we could only learn from that. Personally I'm not convinced yet about any origin for the human figures, exactly because there are so many parallels. By themselves, proportions will not prove much. But they can sure enhance one's analysis.
For the figures you showed here, I got between 4.1 and 6.1 heads measured in the same way I measured the nymphs. They are a bit less consistent, but especially the priest (4.4 heads) would fit right in proportion wise
My guess is that the faces are given emphasis because these scenes would be viewed from a distance, and they are quite dramatic- not just saints standing around.
By the way, the best match I found so far is in the Zodiac of BNF Lat. 7028. The Gemini are completely in line with VM proportions.