- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
Dragons, Dogs & Amadillos?
- Dragons, Dogs & Amadillos?
-
RE: Dragons, Dogs & Amadillos?
-JKP- > 10-01-2020, 12:45 AM
It's a giraffe. It's clearly labeled. You would never guess from the drawing alone. It looks like a goat with an elongated neck, but elongated necks were common in medieval drawings, so this by itself often doesn't mean anything.
I wish I had blocked out the elephant that was bleeding through and giving it away.
It's amazing how different the drawing can be from the original animal. I've seen a tiger that was drawn as a horse and a crocodile that was drawn as a lion and you would NEVER guess what they were without the labels. -
RE: Dragons, Dogs & Amadillos?
-JKP- > 17-11-2020, 02:11 AM
Marco, thank you for your blog translation for the Calcatrice. It's very interesting.
I am not good at dating Italian script. I always do it cautiously and usually only for my personal records, unless I can find some historical precedents supporting a certain date range. Italian script is more similar over time than some of the other scripts and I haven't spent as much time studying it as I have the Gothic scripts from other regions. So, my opinion means almost nothing when it comes to Italian scripts, but I still wanted to mention this because I was surprised...
In manuscripts from the mid-1450s, I am accustomed to seeing styles like You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. By 1460 some are more cursive, like You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., but even the latter one is more formal than the Wellcome manuscript.
I would never have guessed the Wellcome manuscripts was so early.
If I look only at the script (not the codicology or drawings), it looks like very late in the 15th century, or 16th century. It even crossed my mind that someone who learned secretary hand (one of the quicker cursive versions from the 16th century like You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) and adapted the style to Italian, but it does look a bit earlier than the linked example.
I assume Wellcome has more information than they are posting (watermarks, binding, provenance, or other clues), but the script still seems somewhat modern compared to most mid-15th century scripts. -
RE: Dragons, Dogs & Amadillos?
-JKP- > 17-11-2020, 02:27 AM
Marco, did the transcription come from a different version of the text from the one with the dragon drawing?
I noticed the words of the transcription don't match the Wellcome MS 132 manuscript. It's close, but not the same.
Edit: I'm sorry, I must have skipped over the shelfmark when I read your blog the first time. So, the transcription is from BNF It. 450 and the drawing is from Wellcome MS 132. I understand now. That's why the transcription didn't match the text next to the drawing.