14-03-2022, 07:30 PM
Gab19 wrote, "Now I am wondering - where could be seen the image of Apollo in Middle Ages?"
Harley 4431 is an example of such a source, and it fits in the VMs C-14 dates. There are plenty of different representations, but so much is after 1450. And too far after 1450 means that the use of the VMs parchment was not contemporary with its manufacture. This would move VMs investigation into a different situation.
It is proposed that the male nymph might represent Apollo. That is an interesting possibility. Among all the 'stellas', (Latin female for star), here is 'der Stern" in the nude. Does that make him Apollo? I don't know, it might.
What relevant evidence is available? That is the first question. Is there something more to substantiate this interpretation? If the identification is accepted as valid, does it provide any further insights?
A lot of medieval art doesn't include human forms. Then there are religious images, classical representations and numerous depictions of battles. There are various examples of "undressed" or nude bodies, mainly in the first two examples. The other part is how to define 'nude'. Does 'critical coverage' still qualify as "undressed"? Dressed figures are the majority, and among the undressed, they are mythical and fewer biblical - depending on definitions. Or perhaps there are sufficient naked bathers to turn the tide. And there's another problem. How to count the "featureless"??
Harley 4431 is an example of such a source, and it fits in the VMs C-14 dates. There are plenty of different representations, but so much is after 1450. And too far after 1450 means that the use of the VMs parchment was not contemporary with its manufacture. This would move VMs investigation into a different situation.
It is proposed that the male nymph might represent Apollo. That is an interesting possibility. Among all the 'stellas', (Latin female for star), here is 'der Stern" in the nude. Does that make him Apollo? I don't know, it might.
What relevant evidence is available? That is the first question. Is there something more to substantiate this interpretation? If the identification is accepted as valid, does it provide any further insights?
A lot of medieval art doesn't include human forms. Then there are religious images, classical representations and numerous depictions of battles. There are various examples of "undressed" or nude bodies, mainly in the first two examples. The other part is how to define 'nude'. Does 'critical coverage' still qualify as "undressed"? Dressed figures are the majority, and among the undressed, they are mythical and fewer biblical - depending on definitions. Or perhaps there are sufficient naked bathers to turn the tide. And there's another problem. How to count the "featureless"??