Marco
It is good to see that even though our views differ, there are some tentative patches of common ground emerging throughout the discussion. Especially the nymphs as metaphors or concepts rather than real people in baths. And also, the inconvenient impossibility to produce satisfactory visual parallels from the early 15th century. But if it were easy to find such parallels, this forum would probably not exist
I like how you phrase the choice one faces when studying quire 13, though I don't see the section as a 15th century deviation from the Aratea tradition. I would rather see it as an offshoot of a different tradition, of which only one example happens to survive.
The Aratea tradition only survived because it was picked up by a number of intellectual centres, like the Carolingians. The Leiden Aratea is one of the most beautiful examples, believed to have been copied from a manuscript as early as the fourth century (see for example Marion Dolan's thesis, which goes into more detail than Dekker). These various early copies were copied again and again, well into the 15th century.
Let's imagine that only one of these manuscripts survived, and let's say it was one with a good amount of copyists' reinterpretations. I have seen examples where male figures like Heracles and Eridanus are turned into women, where Hercules' lion pelt has evolved into a live human hostage... There are whole strands of manuscripts where the goats around the Charioteer have become rabbits. The list goes on and on. Imagine such a manuscript was the only survivor. What would we say about it?
So my reasoning is, that in quire 13 we see the 15th century end of a much less common tradition, of which exactly one copy survived, gathered together with copies of similarly uncommon documents. That we see some clearly medieval elements in it is undeniable - the artefact was made by 15th century hands, just like some of the more deviant Aratus copies. The difference is that we can understand very well what happened to those Aratea copies, because we have tons of material to compare it to, and in many cases can even trace the steps it took to end up with a deviant depiction of a constellation. Aratus had the fortune to have remained popular in Europe.
It is good to see that even though our views differ, there are some tentative patches of common ground emerging throughout the discussion. Especially the nymphs as metaphors or concepts rather than real people in baths. And also, the inconvenient impossibility to produce satisfactory visual parallels from the early 15th century. But if it were easy to find such parallels, this forum would probably not exist
I like how you phrase the choice one faces when studying quire 13, though I don't see the section as a 15th century deviation from the Aratea tradition. I would rather see it as an offshoot of a different tradition, of which only one example happens to survive.
The Aratea tradition only survived because it was picked up by a number of intellectual centres, like the Carolingians. The Leiden Aratea is one of the most beautiful examples, believed to have been copied from a manuscript as early as the fourth century (see for example Marion Dolan's thesis, which goes into more detail than Dekker). These various early copies were copied again and again, well into the 15th century.
Let's imagine that only one of these manuscripts survived, and let's say it was one with a good amount of copyists' reinterpretations. I have seen examples where male figures like Heracles and Eridanus are turned into women, where Hercules' lion pelt has evolved into a live human hostage... There are whole strands of manuscripts where the goats around the Charioteer have become rabbits. The list goes on and on. Imagine such a manuscript was the only survivor. What would we say about it?
So my reasoning is, that in quire 13 we see the 15th century end of a much less common tradition, of which exactly one copy survived, gathered together with copies of similarly uncommon documents. That we see some clearly medieval elements in it is undeniable - the artefact was made by 15th century hands, just like some of the more deviant Aratus copies. The difference is that we can understand very well what happened to those Aratea copies, because we have tons of material to compare it to, and in many cases can even trace the steps it took to end up with a deviant depiction of a constellation. Aratus had the fortune to have remained popular in Europe.