New Member
Lauren Talley
I'm a University of Delaware student. My major is elementary education
and my minor is history. Hear from you soon.
Lauren Talley
MARTIN REBOUL
If you haven't 'lurked' for a while, you may be surprised by what you see.
Don't be put off however, amongst the "chaff" there is plenty of "wheat",
and if you ask a question, I assure you you'll get a polite answer.
Well - one at least!
Cheers
Martin
"Lauren Talley" <lta...@udel.edu> wrote in message
news:3A90757B...@udel.edu...
Angelo Tulumello
We received your posting (all 8 of them) and we are happy to have you with
us. Welcome! Welcome! Welcome! Welcome!Welcome! Welcome! Welcome! Welcome.
While it is clear that we might relate to you minor interest in history, it
is not clear how this fits in the scope of your larger interest. Perhaps,
for our own enlightenment and yours, you can tell us what the larger purpose
of this assignment is. Here we exercise the ultimate educationaal freedom.
This is the freedom to express any truth, alienation, invective, intuition,
error, and ignorance that is possible for the mind of man (and woman). Here
we also have the oportunity for exposure to the best and most thoughtful
insights and guidance possible and useful to those of us interested in
history. Your exposure to this group will provide both.
Clearly in your early view of us you should develop a criterion for
judgement and selection, Much of what is said is to be ignored. Some
individuals deserve similar attention (or the lack of it). One thing will be
obvious and that is that history gives rise to many questions. Here you may
find answers. You will also have the opportunity to make use of these to
give you direction in your further study.
If your primary interest is exucational technology you may learn that the
primary and ultimate goal of education is to impart to a student the
committment to be an active element in his/her process of growth. Begin Here
Again Welcome
Angelo Tulumello
"Lauren Talley" <lta...@udel.edu> wrote in message
news:3A90757B...@udel.edu...
Lblanch001
>Welcome to SHM Lauren!
>
>If you haven't 'lurked' for a while, you may be surprised by what you see.
>Don't be put off however, amongst the "chaff" there is plenty of "wheat",
>and if you ask a question, I assure you you'll get a polite answer.
>
>Well - one at least!
>
Hello, Lauren, and welcome to soc.history.medieval. Since you're at UDel,
please allow me to put in a plug for the big exhibition coming up at the
Philadelphia Museum of Art, "Leaves of Gold: Treasures of Manuscript
Illumination from Philadelphia Collections." There's also a traveling
scriptorium component geared to students in grades 3-6, so you may find it
doubly interesting.
Additionally, a regular member (Brian Scott) posts a monthly message with
pointers to other resources of interest to s.h.m. readers. You might want to
search http://www.groups.google.com/ on the keywords "FAQ pointer" and the
newsgroup "soc.history.medieval" to find it.
Regards,
Laura Blanchard
lblan...@aol.com (or lbla...@pobox.upenn.edu)
http://www.r3.org/
(see http://orb.rhodes.edu/ to reach major medieval gateway sites)
Paul J Gans
Dear Lauren:
I know that I speak for most of the folks here when I welcome
you to soc.history.medieval. It is a good newsgroup. We have
our share of experts and friendly folks. And our share of
non-friendly folks.
I'm going to stick my neck out, so please forgive me. Your
message(s) appeared here multiple times. Are you having some
trouble with your newsreader? Check it out.
A newsgroup is more like a bulletin board than anything else.
It isn't like e-mail. People post messages (such as this one)
and other folks respond or not as they see fit. As is often
the case, some messages are about medieval history (and even
sometimes technology) and others are just folks chatting with
each other. Nevertheless, a good bit of material on the
Middle Ages gets posted here.
I understand that you are here because of a course requirement.
Nevertheless, you can *still* have a good time... ;-)
Tell us what your interests are and perhaps we can give you
some pointers.
And welcome!
---- Paul J. Gans
Frank Martin
Be firm with them, now.
Frank
"Lauren Talley" <lta...@udel.edu> wrote in message
news:3A90757B...@udel.edu...
Renea Mccauley
well that answers my prvious post *g*
Lblanch001
>At last! Many posters here are in dire need of elementary education.
>Be firm with them, now.
>Frank
Now, Frank. Be nice. She doesn't know us.
Frank Martin
dishevelled, Victorian-bonneted, governess with birch in hand to
instil manners into certain persons whose name begins with "H"!
Optimistic regards
Frank
"Lblanch001" <lblan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010221014748...@ng-md1.aol.com...
MARTIN REBOUL
Frank Martin wrote...
> Who knows? She may appear in the form of a leather-clad, buxom,
> dishevelled, Victorian-bonneted, governess with birch in hand to
> instil manners into certain persons whose name begins with "H"!
> Optimistic regards
I can hardly wait.....!
Heather Rose Jones
>
> Who knows? She may appear in the form of a leather-clad, buxom,
> dishevelled, Victorian-bonneted, governess with birch in hand to
> instil manners into certain persons whose name begins with "H"!
> Optimistic regards
> Frank
Hey, I wasn't _that_ snippy to her! But if she shows up on my doorstep
disheveled, buxom, and leather-clad I'll try to cope. (Sorry, I just
can't fit the Victorian bonnet in the mental image.)
--
*********
Heather Rose Jones
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
*********
Paul J Gans
> Frank Martin wrote:
>>
>> Who knows? She may appear in the form of a leather-clad, buxom,
>> dishevelled, Victorian-bonneted, governess with birch in hand to
>> instil manners into certain persons whose name begins with "H"!
>> Optimistic regards
>> Frank
> Hey, I wasn't _that_ snippy to her! But if she shows up on my doorstep
> disheveled, buxom, and leather-clad I'll try to cope. (Sorry, I just
> can't fit the Victorian bonnet in the mental image.)
Hmmm. Wait a minute. A curious thing just ran through my
slightly warped mind. I don't recall ever seeing "buxom"
or one of its counterparts listed as a desireable female
attribute in any medieval literature. Doesn't mean that
it isn't there, though. I've seen pale, golden-tressed,
thin, and a few others, but never buxom.
This isn't quite the same thing as asking what the
medieval idea of female beauty was. That's a slightly
different question.
Anyone got any pointers?
---- Paul J. Gans
PS: I'm talking about Western Europe here, particularly
that part north of Italy.
Heather Rose Jones
>
> Heather Rose Jones <hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> > Frank Martin wrote:
> >>
> >> Who knows? She may appear in the form of a leather-clad, buxom,
> >> dishevelled, Victorian-bonneted, governess with birch in hand to
> >> instil manners into certain persons whose name begins with "H"!
> >> Optimistic regards
> >> Frank
>
> > Hey, I wasn't _that_ snippy to her! But if she shows up on my doorstep
> > disheveled, buxom, and leather-clad I'll try to cope. (Sorry, I just
> > can't fit the Victorian bonnet in the mental image.)
>
> Hmmm. Wait a minute. A curious thing just ran through my
> slightly warped mind. I don't recall ever seeing "buxom"
> or one of its counterparts listed as a desireable female
> attribute in any medieval literature. Doesn't mean that
> it isn't there, though. I've seen pale, golden-tressed,
> thin, and a few others, but never buxom.
That's because, in the medieval period, "buxom" wasn't a physical
description. The original sense (occurring from at least the 12th c.
on) is "pliant, obedient, bending; gracious". It isn't until the late
16th century that you start getting meanings like "cheerful,
good-humored" and by extension "pleasant-looking".
The modern usage that I tend to encounter usually has a more specific
meaning of "busty, well-endowed", but I suspect this arose largely as a
re-analysis of "pleasant-looking" contaminated by a large number of
breast-related vocabulary with initial "b-".
I -- of course -- intended it purely in the sense "pliant and gracious". :)
David Read
<hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> writes
>
>That's because, in the medieval period, "buxom" wasn't a physical
>description. The original sense (occurring from at least the 12th c.
>on) is "pliant, obedient, bending; gracious". It isn't until the late
>16th century that you start getting meanings like "cheerful,
>good-humored" and by extension "pleasant-looking".
>
>The modern usage that I tend to encounter usually has a more specific
>meaning of "busty, well-endowed", but I suspect this arose largely as a
>re-analysis of "pleasant-looking" contaminated by a large number of
>breast-related vocabulary with initial "b-".
>
>I -- of course -- intended it purely in the sense "pliant and gracious". :)
>
Ah, *those* b-words can be damned confusing...
Winston Churchill said of the surname of Member of Parliament Alfred
Bossom that it was "neither one thing nor the other".
cheers,
--
David Read
Brian M. Scott
<ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
[...]
>Hmmm. Wait a minute. A curious thing just ran through my
>slightly warped mind. I don't recall ever seeing "buxom"
>or one of its counterparts listed as a desireable female
>attribute in any medieval literature. Doesn't mean that
>it isn't there, though. I've seen pale, golden-tressed,
>thin, and a few others, but never buxom.
I don't know whether it was considered a desirable feature, but
Landnámabók mentions <Þorbiörg knarrarbringa>, whose byname is
literally something like 'merchantship-bosom'. Her father was <Gils
skeiðarnef> 'weftbeater-nose'. Her byname is also recorded in the
12th c.
[...]
Brian M. Scott
Paul J Gans
I suspect I was using "buxom" in its more modern sense... ;-)
Seriously, as far as I know, the medievals do not seem to have
had a bosom fetish, beyond commenting on "snow-white bosom", etc.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
> [...]
> [...]
Hmmm. I'm not quite sure what to make of that...
---- Paul J. Gans
David C. Pugh
Brian M. Scott <sc...@math.csuohio.edu> wrote in message
>
> I don't know whether it was considered a desirable feature, but
> Landnámabók mentions <Þorbiörg knarrarbringa>, whose byname is
> literally something like 'merchantship-bosom'.
"Was this the bust that launched a thousand ships?"
David
William Black
Paul J Gans <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote in message news:_wbl6.7
> This isn't quite the same thing as asking what the
> medieval idea of female beauty was. That's a slightly
> different question.
>
> Anyone got any pointers?
Well a couple of books I have talk about the 'S' shape being prefered
without giving any more detail about which way round it should be :-).
And a number of portraits obviously display something that looks like
pregnancy in women who shouldn't be in that state, the Arnolfini Wedding
for one.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
Paul J Gans
> Paul J Gans <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote in message news:_wbl6.7
>> This isn't quite the same thing as asking what the
>> medieval idea of female beauty was. That's a slightly
>> different question.
>>
>> Anyone got any pointers?
> Well a couple of books I have talk about the 'S' shape being prefered
> without giving any more detail about which way round it should be :-).
> And a number of portraits obviously display something that looks like
> pregnancy in women who shouldn't be in that state, the Arnolfini Wedding
> for one.
Yes. There seems to have been an emphasis on prominent
abdomens in women. I'm told by several art historians
here that it was meant to be symbolic of fertility, but
not actual pregnancy. I think that is true of the Arnolfini
Wedding.
It is an apt illustration about ignoring cultural norms. One
today *might* be tempted to assume that the marriage being
immortalized was one of necessity, but I don't think that
is the case at all.
As for the S shape, I think that it is to represent a woman
facing right.
On the other hand, we have at least one person here interested
and knowlegeable in art. I'd be happy to hear her take on it.
----- Paul J. Gans
David Debono
<black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Paul J Gans <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote in message news:_wbl6.7
>
>> This isn't quite the same thing as asking what the
>> medieval idea of female beauty was. That's a slightly
>> different question.
>>
>> Anyone got any pointers?
>
>Well a couple of books I have talk about the 'S' shape being prefered
>without giving any more detail about which way round it should be :-).
>
>And a number of portraits obviously display something that looks like
>pregnancy in women who shouldn't be in that state, the Arnolfini Wedding
>for one.
I think that you will find the current thinking on the Arnolfini
Wedding has nothing to do with being pregnant but is just another of
the symbolic parts of the painting. It was a style to show the female
form not the condition.
The painting simply oozes symbolism from just about every object and
even the angle that the "painter" has taken. Ever thought quite how
much it looks like a modern day photo, it is even possible to see the
"watching guests" in the mirror (if that is actually what they
represent!).
Take care all
David D.
The Mediaeval Combat Society
The Historical Reenactment Web Site
http://www.montacute.net/histrenact/welcome.htm
David Brewer
[...]
> Hmmm. Wait a minute. A curious thing just ran through my
> slightly warped mind. I don't recall ever seeing "buxom"
> or one of its counterparts listed as a desireable female
> attribute in any medieval literature. Doesn't mean that
> it isn't there, though. I've seen pale, golden-tressed,
> thin, and a few others, but never buxom.
>
> This isn't quite the same thing as asking what the
> medieval idea of female beauty was. That's a slightly
> different question.
I don't see how it is. The medievals had their various ideas of
what constituted the ideal female form and buxom isn't it.
> Anyone got any pointers?
Try Margaret Scott's Later Gothic Europe.
--
David Brewer
"It is foolishness and endless trouble to cast a stone at every
dog that barks at you." - George Silver, gentleman, c.1600
MARTIN REBOUL
David Debono wrote
> I think that you will find the current thinking on the Arnolfini
> Wedding has nothing to do with being pregnant but is just another of
> the symbolic parts of the painting. It was a style to show the female
> form not the condition.
>
> The painting simply oozes symbolism from just about every object and
> even the angle that the "painter" has taken. Ever thought quite how
> much it looks like a modern day photo, it is even possible to see the
> "watching guests" in the mirror (if that is actually what they
> represent!).
It is actually far more clever than that - the perspective is 'fiddled'. It
looks far 'better' than any photo ever could be!
cheers
Martin
Simon Pugh
REBOUL <martin...@virgin.net> writes
If anyone interested in this kind of thing hasn't read "Worldly Goods"
by Lisa Jardine ISBN 0-333-67446-4, it's well worth a look.
--
Simon Pugh
David Debono
Oh too true, I only mentioned the photo aspect as an aside really. I'm
not an art historian (my Ex's area really) but just about every aspect
of it is not what it seems. Quite a fascinating peice of work. AIUI
the reason *for* the painting is still not clear to this day!
Maybe another aspect which we can talk about. I am not sure about
romancec and mythology as clear indications of trands of periods but
there is a lot that can be picked up from artistic representations.
I am currently reading Ewart Oakenshott's revised "The sword in the
age of Chivalry", not necessarily from any martial aspect, and he
useds many representations from art of the period (church sculpture,
paintings, manuscript illustrations and such like) to support his
premises that sword types were used in certain periods although he
clearly states that this is *not* an indication of dates of
manufacture, just usage.
I always find it interesting to look at artistic representations as an
indication of such things as dress and building structure *at the time
the picture was created* although it is not always a good thing to use
this as fact of what the subject of the pictures may have been
wearing, doing, or even a representation of the world that they
actually lived in. Just an indication of the world that the *painter*
lived in at the time of the painting.
Take care
Take care
Paul J Gans
> Take care
Since much of what we know of medieval technology comes from
artistic representations, I've had to delve in this pit many
times.
The representation shown *might* be from the world the painter
actually lived in, or it *might* be from a somewhat earlier
time.
As in literature there seem to have been styles. Thus certain
people are shown clothed in a certain "customary" way, even
though the custom was gone at the time of painting.
For example, one convention that has driven me slightly mad
is to show all pulleys as single pulleys, not compound
pulleys. Compound pulleys allow a much greater advantage
when lifting heavy loads. And we *know* that they were known
to the medievals since they are carefully described by
Vitruvius, who was quite popular in the Middle Ages.
But will an artist show how they were used? Not as far as
I've been able to find. The earliest representation of
compound pulleys that I know comes from an Italian drawing
of the 16th century showing a complex network of pulleys
and ropes being used to move a siege tower forward.
---- Paul J. Gans
David Debono
Of course the usual concern must be had and it is not possible to make
a blanket statement about *all* representation. Probably badely worded
by yours truely. But there *are* example that *can* be used to reflect
the prevalent environment and that is my point.
>As in literature there seem to have been styles. Thus certain
>people are shown clothed in a certain "customary" way, even
>though the custom was gone at the time of painting.
I would agree if you had used the word "sometimes" in that statement.
>
>For example, one convention that has driven me slightly mad
>is to show all pulleys as single pulleys, not compound
>pulleys. Compound pulleys allow a much greater advantage
>when lifting heavy loads. And we *know* that they were known
>to the medievals since they are carefully described by
>Vitruvius, who was quite popular in the Middle Ages.
>
>But will an artist show how they were used? Not as far as
>I've been able to find. The earliest representation of
>compound pulleys that I know comes from an Italian drawing
>of the 16th century showing a complex network of pulleys
>and ropes being used to move a siege tower forward.
But you *van* look at all the design drawings for such as the duomo
(sp?) i Florence and see the pulleys and such like as they were used.
It's just a case of looking.
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans
MARTIN REBOUL
David Debono wrote
> >> I think that you will find the current thinking on the Arnolfini
> >> Wedding has nothing to do with being pregnant but is just another of
> >> the symbolic parts of the painting. It was a style to show the female
> >> form not the condition.
> >>
> >> The painting simply oozes symbolism from just about every object and
> >> even the angle that the "painter" has taken. Ever thought quite how
> >> much it looks like a modern day photo, it is even possible to see the
> >> "watching guests" in the mirror (if that is actually what they
> >
> >It is actually far more clever than that - the perspective is 'fiddled'.
It
> >
> Oh too true, I only mentioned the photo aspect as an aside really. I'm
> not an art historian (my Ex's area really) but just about every aspect
> of it is not what it seems. Quite a fascinating peice of work. AIUI
> the reason *for* the painting is still not clear to this day!
I expect the 'reason' for it was as it appears - a representation of an up
and coming 'yuppie' couple of the late 15th C., to hang on their wall and
impress visitors with. But the reason it was executed in such a clever and
brilliant way was perhaps the artist wishing to show how clever he was -
showing off if you like. I expect the couple were in on it too. I can
imagine the patter....
"Sure, I can do you a portrait.....but why not let me try something really
special, a new technique I've been working on? I promise you, It'll REALLY
impress your friends, and you'll be the first in town to have anything like
it on the wall. If you don't like it, I'll just fix it up to look like the
old fashioned formal stuff, but I don't reckon so once you've seen it! Go
on, give it a go....?
And they said okay, and we're still marvelling at it today. Pity they were
so unattractive....
> Maybe another aspect which we can talk about. I am not sure about
> romancec and mythology as clear indications of trands of periods but
> there is a lot that can be picked up from artistic representations.
Quite so. The peculiar symbolism and hidden messages in the pictures of 'my'
period (mid to late 15th C) are a constant source of fascination to me, and
seem to be a great source of irritation to art historians, who tend to avoid
commiting themselves on the finer details of what means what, and so-on.
> I am currently reading Ewart Oakenshott's revised "The sword in the
> age of Chivalry", not necessarily from any martial aspect, and he
> useds many representations from art of the period (church sculpture,
> paintings, manuscript illustrations and such like) to support his
> premises that sword types were used in certain periods although he
> clearly states that this is *not* an indication of dates of
> manufacture, just usage.
>
> I always find it interesting to look at artistic representations as an
> indication of such things as dress and building structure *at the time
> the picture was created* although it is not always a good thing to use
> this as fact of what the subject of the pictures may have been
> wearing, doing, or even a representation of the world that they
> actually lived in. Just an indication of the world that the *painter*
> lived in at the time of the painting.
I am greatly intrigued by the gestures and poses of people in pictures of
the period, particularly representing scenes at various Court's, and
illustrations of political and military events in chronicles and strange
books like Lydgate's 'Troy Book'. I have my own theories about some of
these, but have found very little information and few opinions ever offered
on the subject. Does anyone know of any 'standard work' on this
subject....or non-standard, or even 'sub-standard' works?
Cheers
Martin
William Black
David Debono <david....@montacute.net> wrote in message
> I always find it interesting to look at artistic representations as an
> indication of such things as dress and building structure *at the time
> the picture was created* although it is not always a good thing to use
> this as fact of what the subject of the pictures may have been
> wearing, doing, or even a representation of the world that they
> actually lived in. Just an indication of the world that the *painter*
> lived in at the time of the painting.
And of course that is why I used the Arnolfini Wedding as an example in the
first place.
It is NOT typical of its period and was painted by van Eyke, who did exist,
as opposed to van Eyke who almost certainly did not, and who didn't invent
oil paints anyway.
That such a picture should be painted so early and in so sophisticated a
style is in itself a remarkable event. That it remains, with it's hidden
meanings and images, such a draw is also remarkable.
Of course we can go from there to the portraits of Elizabeth of England and
talk forever about symbolism, but it's not nearly as much fun as the
fifteenth century stuff as nobody knows what most of the symbols mean in
them.
D. Spencer Hines
>people are shown clothed in a certain "customary" way, even
>though the custom was gone at the time of painting.
the goose
-------------------
"I would agree if you had used the word "sometimes" in that statement."
Demalo
-------------------
1. Demalo gets one right.
2. The goose defiantly eschews nuanced, carefully honed statements and
graduated qualifiers.
3. He thinks it makes him sound more authoritative and sure of himself
to speak in hyperbolic absolutes. Although he certainly does not
BELIEVE in absolutes. So, he's quite inconsistent here. His poor
writing ---- and thinking ---- skills compound and exacerbate the
problem.
4. It's the rhetorical device of a weak and insecure teacher, a man who
has to pump himself up in order to sound authoritative to his
lower-level undergraduate students. He's apparently just not trusted to
work with more sophisticated graduate students.
5. Actually, the cheap rhetorical trick boomerangs on him and creates
just the impression he is trying so hard to avoid. When he is
inevitably called to account for these hyperbolic statements, he looks
even dumber than had he not made them.
How Sweet It Is!
Deus Vult.
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
David Debono
Then I suspect that your expectations fall somewhat short of the mark!
There are many books on the reasons for the painting, one of which is
as a sort of marriage certificate (although this is out of favour at
the moment).
>"Sure, I can do you a portrait.....but why not let me try something really
>special, a new technique I've been working on? I promise you, It'll REALLY
>impress your friends, and you'll be the first in town to have anything like
>it on the wall. If you don't like it, I'll just fix it up to look like the
>old fashioned formal stuff, but I don't reckon so once you've seen it! Go
>on, give it a go....?
>
Actually if that was the case it would be one-in-the-eye for all of
those historians *smile*.
Renia
> Paul J Gans <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote in message news:_wbl6.7
>
> > This isn't quite the same thing as asking what the
> > medieval idea of female beauty was. That's a slightly
> > different question.
> >
> > Anyone got any pointers?
>
> Well a couple of books I have talk about the 'S' shape being prefered
> without giving any more detail about which way round it should be :-).
>
> And a number of portraits obviously display something that looks like
> pregnancy in women who shouldn't be in that state, the Arnolfini Wedding
> for one.
I think Jan van Eyck was being deliberately ambiguous. Jeanne de Chenany
looks pregnant, because, in her left hand, she holds acres of gathered dress
up under her bust. We can tell how much material is gathered up by the amount
of the train at the back of the dress, and the height to which she has raised
the hem from the floor. A hint of underskirt, and we know they have already
begun to undress, for they wear no shoes, and she stands next to the made-up
bed. In other words, we know where they're going, to the unmade bed, and what
for, to create a bulge under her bust. And yet, they're not going to bed, not
just yet, for this is her betrothal to Giovanni Arnolfini, and and there are
witnesses to it; us, the viewer, the little family dog, a witness, and also
the artist reflected in the mirror. Van Eyck has even added a Kilroy Wuz 'Ere
motto, in 'Johannes de eyck fuit hic', which he has written right above the
mirror, where we are all bound to see it. Soon, he will clasp her right hand
with his right hand. Perhaps she may finalise the action, by dropping her
bulge, and move her left hand towards his. I think present action and future
intent are represented in this painting, not past action.
While the van Eyck brothers were long credited with the invention of
oil-painting, this is no longer considered the case. But what Jan van Eyck
did, was to perfect the technique of the slower-drying oil and varnish over
the egg-based tempera, which allowed him to over-paint and blend his colours,
and add highlights. It allowed for something closer to realism at the time,
and is one of the reasons the colours to remain so strong today.
Renia
David Debono
Sorry Renia,
From the National Gallery...
"Although the painting has long been known as the 'Arnolfini
Marriage', it is unlikely that it records a wedding ceremony.
Arnolfini is shown welcoming his guests who can be seen entering the
room in the mirror behind him. He raises his hand in greeting and
introduces his wife to them"
Which is just one view. But most seem to think that it is *not* about
marriage anymore. How do the "single candle" an "fruit" (IIRC slightly
mouldy) fit this?
>While the van Eyck brothers were long credited with the invention of
>oil-painting, this is no longer considered the case. But what Jan van Eyck
>did, was to perfect the technique of the slower-drying oil and varnish over
>the egg-based tempera, which allowed him to over-paint and blend his colours,
>and add highlights. It allowed for something closer to realism at the time,
>and is one of the reasons the colours to remain so strong today.
>
>Renia
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> William Black
>> ------------------
>> On time, on budget, or works;
>> Pick any two from three
>
>
David D.
Renia
I did not say it was a wedding ceremony, but a betrothal. Not quite the same
thing. The artist himself has witnessed this, by his "writing on the wall". It may
well be the artist reflected in the mirror. If the artist is that keen to have his
name and presence as part of the painting, then why not his very image?
> Which is just one view. But most seem to think that it is *not* about
> marriage anymore. How do the "single candle" an "fruit" (IIRC slightly
> mouldy) fit this?
These two are comfortable with each other. It's a homely scene. They have kicked
off their shoes; she has yanked up her dress; the dog is almost smiling; the
window is wide open. The fruit is part of that homely scene. They are sharing the
fruit, as they will be sharing everything else. The single candle could be
symbolic, and we could think up all sorts of reasons for it, as well as the reason
it is alight, in what appears to be a bright day. Maybe it is alight to represent
their love, and it is a single candle to represent their unity, with 5 or 6 empty
candleholders, to represent the future children. But perhaps, simply, that's as it
was. Perhaps he had only one candle!
Renia
MARTIN REBOUL
David Debono wrote...
Perhaps they were the sort of people you might have met on
alt.dutch.medieval.swingers, had such a thing existed then, welcoming guests
in a stae of undress?
More seriously, perhaps they aren't wearing shoes because they normally
didn't around the house - I'm thinking along Dutch - clogs? lines there I
suppose, just a wild guess. Although they look a bit stuffy, that may not
have been the case (for as we all know, one should never judge by
appearances!). Perhaps they asked for something a bit clever or different,
if the artist didn't suggest it himself. I wonder if they liked the picture?
I reckon they did.
The trouble is, we have no idea at all what they were like as people. My
personal theory, as a highly respected, internationally acclaimed Art
Historian of the first rank, is that they were married a while back, she is
now pregnant - he is proud of that, and so is she - they are pleased with
themselves and happy. He wants to show off (not in a nasty way), celebrate
the moment, and remember it forever through this 'snapshot'.
The unmade bed hints at how it was done, and is the heaviest hint of what it
is all about.
> Which is just one view. But most seem to think that it is *not* about
> marriage anymore. How do the "single candle" an "fruit" (IIRC slightly
> mouldy) fit this?
The fruit probably represents the inevitable future - wrinkled fruit was
sometimes used to symbolise old age, decay, even death. The single candle is
a bit more tricky, but extinguished lamps and candles later came to
represent death in a big way - there is an early 18th C stone in the local
graveyard that has a picture of the Grim Reaper on it, hourglass in one
hand, scythe in the other, and a lamp too (he has the traditional cowl, and
the 'face' has worn away unfortunately, but the chubbiest thighs I've ever
seen Death exhibiting - he must have lost a lot of weight during the next
few decades!).
I think the whole picture is really about 'showing off' really. The skill of
the artist, the fertility of the couple, their house, fine clothes - clever,
radical and refreshingly candid perhaps. A celebration.
Now I'll be popping out in cloak, Fedora, purple velvet suit and bow tie, as
I have to get my cigatrette holder fixed before the next
exhibition.......work, work, work...........
>
> >While the van Eyck brothers were long credited with the invention of
> >oil-painting, this is no longer considered the case. But what Jan van
Eyck
> >did, was to perfect the technique of the slower-drying oil and varnish
over
> >the egg-based tempera, which allowed him to over-paint and blend his
colours,
> >and add highlights. It allowed for something closer to realism at the
time,
> >and is one of the reasons the colours to remain so strong today.
A bit of an experimenter, not afraid to try new things, and probably not
bound by the dictates of tradition? It all adds up. I doubt if my acrylics
will look so good in five hundred years, whatever it claims on the box!
cheers
Martin
Renia
Not quite clogs, more like a sort of high-heeled wooden flip-flop! (Bit like the
type geisha girls wear.)
> Although they look a bit stuffy, that may not
> have been the case (for as we all know, one should never judge by
> appearances!).
The couple does look stiff, a little like those early Victorian family photos,
where people had to sit still for ages while the photo was taken. While artists
had become more experienced in drawing human anatomy, they were perhaps, as yet,
still unskilled at portratying the fluidity of human movement.
> Perhaps they asked for something a bit clever or different,
> if the artist didn't suggest it himself. I wonder if they liked the picture?
> I reckon they did.
>
> The trouble is, we have no idea at all what they were like as people. My
> personal theory, as a highly respected, internationally acclaimed Art
> Historian of the first rank, is that they were married a while back, she is
> now pregnant - he is proud of that, and so is she - they are pleased with
> themselves and happy. He wants to show off (not in a nasty way), celebrate
> the moment, and remember it forever through this 'snapshot'.
Certainly, such a painting would reflect both the artist's and the merchant's
need to "show off" what they had made of themselves in life.
> The unmade bed hints at how it was done, and is the heaviest hint of what it
> is all about.
I typed unmade, when I meant made. Sorry. The bed is clean, crisp, and perfectly
tidy. It has not been used yet. But it will be.
> > Which is just one view. But most seem to think that it is *not* about
> > marriage anymore. How do the "single candle" an "fruit" (IIRC slightly
> > mouldy) fit this?
>
> The fruit probably represents the inevitable future - wrinkled fruit was
> sometimes used to symbolise old age, decay, even death. The single candle is
> a bit more tricky, but extinguished lamps and candles later came to
> represent death in a big way - there is an early 18th C stone in the local
> graveyard that has a picture of the Grim Reaper on it, hourglass in one
> hand, scythe in the other, and a lamp too (he has the traditional cowl, and
> the 'face' has worn away unfortunately, but the chubbiest thighs I've ever
> seen Death exhibiting - he must have lost a lot of weight during the next
> few decades!).
>
> I think the whole picture is really about 'showing off' really. The skill of
> the artist, the fertility of the couple, their house, fine clothes - clever,
> radical and refreshingly candid perhaps. A celebration.
Yes, it was the very basis for most paintings. A medium for the artist to show
off his skills, while portraying the lifstyle of the sitter or patron.
> Now I'll be popping out in cloak, Fedora, purple velvet suit and bow tie, as
> I have to get my cigatrette holder fixed before the next
> exhibition.......work, work, work...........
Hmm, an image!
Renia
Lblanch001
>
>And they said okay, and we're still marvelling at it today. Pity they were
>so unattractive....
You know, Martin, I spent a good while staring at that portrait the other month
and had reached exactly the opposite conclusion.
As for your other question about gestures, positions, and symbolism in later
medieval art, I suspect that we haven't reached the point where a "definitive"
work is likely to be written. There are many young scholars working on pieces
of the puzzle. For example, I know of one who did her dissertation, a few years
back, on ceremonies of arrival and departure in Malory's Morte d'Arthur. Others
are working on other aspects of specific literary works, or illuminations, or
genres, but I don't think we have enough work on the details to start the grand
synthesis yet.
Still, here are two books that I think Martin in particular, and possibly
others, may enjoy. Gail Murray Gibson, _The Theater of Devotion_ (published in
the lat 1980s or early 1990s, I think), examines various forms of art in East
Anglia in the later middle ages. She's looking at the rise of a specific
mercantile class and its influence on (and representation in) drama,
literature, church architecture, etc. Anne Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs, in
_Richard III's Books_, use his library as a lens through which to examine both
book production and book patronage in the later fifteenth century. They also
look at the texts to infer what the nobility of the time may have thought on
various issues. They chose Richard III's books not only because they were
Richard's, but because it's the largest group of books that can be reliably
assigned to individual ownership thanks to his habit of writing his name on
them.
Regards,
Laura Blanchard
lblan...@aol.com (or lbla...@pobox.upenn.edu)
http://www.r3.org/
(see http://orb.rhodes.edu/ to reach major medieval gateway sites)
Lblanch001
>I think Jan van Eyck was being deliberately ambiguous. Jeanne de Chenany
>looks pregnant, because, in her left hand, she holds acres of gathered dress
>up under her bust. We can tell how much material is gathered up by the amount
>of the train at the back of the dress, and the height to which she has raised
>the hem from the floor. A hint of underskirt, and we know they have already
>begun to undress, for they wear no shoes, and she stands next to the made-up
>bed. In other words, we know where they're going, to the unmade bed, and what
>for, to create a bulge under her bust. And yet, they're not going to bed, not
>just yet, for this is her betrothal to Giovanni Arnolfini, and and there are
>witnesses to it; us, the viewer, the little family dog, a witness, and also
>the artist reflected in the mirror. Van Eyck has even added a Kilroy Wuz 'Ere
>motto, in 'Johannes de eyck fuit hic', which he has written right above the
>mirror, where we are all bound to see it. Soon, he will clasp her right hand
>with his right hand. Perhaps she may finalise the action, by dropping her
>bulge, and move her left hand towards his. I think present action and future
>intent are represented in this painting, not past action.
>
Ummm. Jeanne is holding up her skirt because it's what you had to do if you
wanted to walk in a fashionably long gown. As far as I know, no one wore
pattens (the wooden platform shoes) in the house -- the idea of those was to
keep your hosen out of the muck on the streets. And the bedchamber was often
used as a quasi-public space.
Or so I've been led to believe.
David Debono
They are pattens, I have a pair, and are worn under normal shoes to
keep the feet dry and the mud off, and they work as well today as they
did hundreds of years ago!.
David D.
Curt Emanuel
the subject line. I just checked in on this thread and found that it
actually had something substantial in it. I have no idea for how long
because I've been deleting it unread for several days.
--
Curt Emanuel (cema...@accs.net)
Simon Pugh
<david....@montacute.net> writes
This is what Lisa Jardine, in Worldly Goods, has to say:
Jan van Eyck's double portrait - probably commissioned from the Italian
merchant Giovanni Arnolfini to commemorate his betrothal or marriage to
Giovanna Cenami - is packed with details of acquisitiveness in fifteenth
century Bruges. It invites the viewer's eye to dwell on the oriental
rug, the settle and high-backed chair with their carved pommels, and the
red-canopied bed, whose hangings echo the cloth and cushions on the
chairs. Our eye is irresistibly drawn to the lovingly painted, heavily
worked fabrics of the bride's sumptuous green gown with its fur-lined
sleeves heavy with tucking and stitching, the crimping of her lavishly
layered headdress, the rich velvet, fur-edged over-garment of the
bridegroom. The strongly illuminated discarded pattens or clogs indicate
that their wearers were above stepping in the muddy Flanders streets.
Behind the sitters hang the much described convex Venetian mirror, its
frame inset with enamelling and decorated with painted miniature scenes
from Christ's Passion, and an ornate brass chandelier with a single
flaming candle. At the feet of the couple the miniature lap-dog looks
out at us with kitsch curiosity.
This is no record of a pair of individuals; it is a celebration of
ownership - of pride in possessions from wife to pet, to bed-hangings
and brasswork. Such paintings have been called "realistic portraiture",
but surely this misses the point. Only the face of the male subject is
(possibly) real - really a portrait. The woman's figure is a perfect
stereotype, virtually identical to other female figures in other
paintings, down to the details of her face and expression. She is as
much a model of womanhood (owned with pride by her wealthy spouse) as
the carved saint on the pommel of the chair. Both can be matched to
contemporary pattern-books - ledgers of commodities for furniture design
and circulation. We are expected to take an interest in all this
profusion of detail as a guarantee of the importance of the sitter, not
as a record of a particular Flemish interior.
The composition is a tribute to the mental landscape of the successful
merchant - his urge to have and to hold. What is surely striking is how
the possessions crammed in here exactly match those laid out behind the
Master of Liesborn's Virgin. This is even more apparent if we register
that the green of Giovanna's gown is the coded colour of chastity in the
secular sphere, just as indigo or deep blue is the equivalent code on
the sacred. And, indeed, in support of such a view, we may acknowledge
the way the passive contentment on the face of Mary, surrounded by the
trappings of affluence, precisely echoes the dutiful satisfaction of
Giovanna Cenami.
Worldly Goods is a most interesting book examining the commercial and
economic factors underpinning the Renaissance. It certainly make you
look at paintings in a different way.
--
Simon Pugh
Afropea
this has nothing to do with body type, but body position.
The Romanesque era used such fluidly in the body type
that the figure appears to have no bones, These design
elements and were quite removed from natural form
and are basically decorative stylizations. In contrast,
check out the static jamb figures at Chartes Cathdral from
the early Gothic era (both, BTW, follow the architecture.).
In the later jamb figures at Chartes, figures had a senses of
weight on one foot or a sense of movement which
included the jutting of a hip. They are more classically
influed. This "S" shape eventually became even more
pronounced as a stylistic element rather than an attempt
to capture a naturalistic pose. It became extremely
popular, and I'm particularly fond of its use in portraits
of the Madonna and child.
OTH maybe you are talking about something entirely
different!
If I am not mistake, female body type in the MA
tended to be pearshaped, with small well rounded breasts.
I've heard the enlarged abdomen as a sign of fertility, and it
was popularly depictedeven among virgins with no
suggestion of scandal. It reminds me of Orthodox Jewish
communities where I've seen young unmarried women
wear their hair in fashions that resemble the wigs worn
by their married sisters. They are mimicing the desired status.
JMHO,
Eve
Afropea
>in the mirror (if that is actually what they
>represent!).
I think I heard that these were considered
"witnesses" rather than guests, but you might be better informed.
Eve
Afropea
>the perspective is 'fiddled'. It
>looks far 'better' than any photo ever
>could be!
I totally agree. It's sort of a hyper-realism,
with everything in focus. It also shifts in
perspective with your eye, whereas in a photo
you only get one POV.
Eve
Afropea
>time.
It could also just be an artistic liberty. I
remember reading that some medieval
instruments depicted in paintings were
physical impossibilities. There's no way
they could produce a sound. But they
"looked nice" and sometimes in a work of
art that's all that matters! People should
consider that's also the case in
comtemporary art forms such as movies.
Sometimes we use historical research in our
films, sometimes we refer to our own times,
and sometimes things are made up just
because they work with the image or as part
of a symbolism in the story!
Eve
Afropea
>I expect the 'reason' for it was as it appears
> a representation of an up and coming 'yuppie'
>couple of the late 15th C., to hang on their
>wall and impress visitors with.
YES! YES! YES! There's a wonderful book called "Wordly Goods" that talks
about the very
phenomena in art of the Renaissance.
>And they said okay, and we're still marvelling at it
>today. Pity they were so unattractive....
To us. I imagine they thought they looked splendid to themselves and their
friends.
>The peculiar symbolism and hidden messages in the
>pictures of 'my'period (mid to late 15th C) are a constant
>source of fascination to me, and seem to be a great source
>of irritation to art historians, who tend to avoid
>commiting themselves on the finer details of what means
>what, and so-on.
Well, like all historians, art historians
like to be careful. It's easy to misinterpret
things, and you have to be careful in
confusing theory and reality. There's
also the problem in that symbols can
change in definition depending on context,
and that symbols can have multiple meanings.
I can't remember anything specific, but
within many art historical writings you'll
find wonderful discussions on iconography.
A few months ago I read a wonderful one on
symbols that represented "outsiders" in
15th century society. If you are interested,
I could track down the title for you.
I also still use "Signs and Symbols in
Christian Art" by George Ferguson and
"A Guide to Myth and Relgion in European
Painting, 1270-1700" by Satia and Robert
Bernen, from my undergraduate days.
There are a lot of approaches to art history,
and iconography is just one of them. Of
course, in the study of the Renaissance,
Erwin Panofsky was the king of this approach
to art. In the Middle Ages, the masterpiece
is Emile Male's "The Gothic Image". Older books,
of course, get criticism as more and more is
learned on the topic, but this was the standard
for years. Lately, I've been high on the books of Michael Camille.
JMHO,
Eve
Afropea
Afropea
I was about to agree with Martin again
that the picture was about the artist
showing off, but that in no way means
that it wasn't loaded with contemporary
symbolism. I've no doubt that it was.
And that it wasn't also a show in part of
the life and customs of the period.
BTW, I was told that one can see a
reflection of the artist in the pearl
of the crown of God in the Ghent
Altarpiece. If that isn't showing off,
I don't know what is! I can't verify this,
but was told that it was discovered by
a bored student who obsevered it in a
greatly magnified slide being shown
during class!
Anyway, I have to say that talking about
the picture's "realism" is an art historical
faux pas. In art history the term realism
means something else (unless they've
changed that and didn't tell me!) We tend to
say "naturalism" as in "resembling nature".
Realism would be an attempt to show how
people really look and live, and this is clearly
a staged and idealized piece.
I also wince at the idea that other great
things weren't going on at the same time.
They were only in different areas. The
ability to capture details and the luminous
color of oil caught on and became the fashion,
partly because it was able to capture the
materialism so dear to society at this time.
But that doesn't mean that art was otherwise
at a standstill.
JMHO,
Eve
Afropea
>high-heeled wooden flip-flop! (Bit like the
>type geisha girls wear.) >>
Didn't they grow into a later fashion for platform shoes?
>it still for ages while the photo was taken. While artists
>had become more experienced in drawing human anatomy,
>they were perhaps, as yet, still unskilled at portratying the
>fluidity of human movement.
Perhaps they weren't interested.
Might this be a formal pose for a
formal occasion? Movement is not always a
quality desire in art. And an accurate depiction
of anatomy is only always a goal. I think they
might have been more interested in showing
the luxury of the garments.
JMHO,
Eve
Afropea
>examining the commercial and
>economic factors underpinning the
>Renaissance. It certainly make you
>look at paintings in a different way.
--
Simon Pugh >>
ITA on the value of this book. But I do think
that it's not the entire picture. I think we also
have the use of a great deal of symbolism as well.
The symbols are just shown is new packaging, packaging that implies "status"
symbol as a bonus!
JMHO,
Eve
Afropea
>of anatomy is only always a goal.
Oops! In my rush to get it all in, I found the
first of what will no doubt be many typos. I
meant that an accurate depiction of anatomy
is not always a goal.
Eve
Heather Rose Jones
>
> If you are talking about the same "S" shape I think you are,
> this has nothing to do with body type, but body position.
>
> The Romanesque era used such fluidly in the body type
> that the figure appears to have no bones, These design
> elements and were quite removed from natural form
> and are basically decorative stylizations. In contrast,
> check out the static jamb figures at Chartes Cathdral from
> the early Gothic era (both, BTW, follow the architecture.).
> In the later jamb figures at Chartes, figures had a senses of
> weight on one foot or a sense of movement which
> included the jutting of a hip. They are more classically
> influed. This "S" shape eventually became even more
> pronounced as a stylistic element rather than an attempt
> to capture a naturalistic pose. It became extremely
> popular, and I'm particularly fond of its use in portraits
> of the Madonna and child.
>
> OTH maybe you are talking about something entirely
> different!
I think the original comment was about an S-shaped posture when viewed
from the side, and it sounds like you're talking about an S-shaped
posture when viewed from the front or back.
--
*********
Heather Rose Jones
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
*********
David Debono
No I do not claim to be ab expert hence the (if.....) etc.
Take care
Simon Pugh
<afr...@aol.com> writes
>>Worldly Goods is a most interesting book
>>examining the commercial and
>>economic factors underpinning the
>>Renaissance. It certainly make you
>>look at paintings in a different way.
ITA on the value of this book. But I do think
that it's not the entire picture. I think we also
have the use of a great deal of symbolism as well.
The symbols are just shown is new packaging, packaging that implies
"status"
symbol as a bonus!
JMHO,
Eve
There seems to be something funny about you post, the "reply" didn't
pick it your text so I had to paste it in hence not quote symbols.
You'll get no argument from me there Eve. Worldly Goods examines the
economic aspects of art but this doesn't mean that symbolism is not
important too, just more expensive symbolism <g>. I wonder how much the
oranges under the window cost, and even oranges have symbolism
associated with them.
--
Simon Pugh
Afropea
>I think the original comment was about an
>S-shaped posture when viewed from the side,
>and it sounds like you're talking about an
>S-shaped posture when viewed from the front
>or back.
Thanks!
It could still be the same type of visual motif
used for portraying a fashionable stylistic
elegance.
Eve
Afropea
<< There seems to be something funny about you post, the "reply" didn't
pick it your text so I had to paste it in hence not quote symbols. >>
I'm not surprised. Between AOL which
prints quote marks rather than traditional
usenet format, and what I suspect is my
Mac's own brand of spacing, it's a pain in
the neck to post up to standard. Half
the time I screw up. I'm getting real
tired of having to put the little arrows up,
and then having to do it again
whenever I want to make a change.
Do the quote marks really offend people?
It would make life a heck of a lot easier for
me! And is there a wrap around device that
I just don't know about, that would keep me
from having to cut down my lines to prevent
unsightly spacing?
Eve
Lblanch001
>I'm not surprised. Between AOL which
>prints quote marks rather than traditional
>usenet format,
Eve, are you sure you can't change that? I re-set in "mail preferences" and it
seems to have slopped over into the Usenet area. This is in the global
preference area (from the "my AOL" button on the top toolbar). But perhaps the
Mac version of AOL is different.
Afropea
>Eve, are you sure you can't change that? I re-set in "mail preferences"
>and it
>seems to have slopped over into the Usenet area. This is in the global
>preference area (from the "my AOL" button on the top toolbar). But perhaps
>the
>Mac version of AOL is different.
I'll be damned! The quote thing worked! Thanks a lot. This will change my
life! ;-)
Eve
Paul J Gans
Post in whatever way you can. We will adapt. It does
help if various contributions are separated by blank lines.
---- Paul J. Gans
erilar
afr...@aol.com (Afropea) wrote:
Question is, what's your newsreader? That could be where the trouble
lies. Mine is MT-NW and I'm very happy with it now that I'm used to
it--I had to upgrade because of an address change and it was frustrating
at first because I installed it wrong, or rather tried to 8-)
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka erilar)
Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
Lblanch001
>
>Question is, what's your newsreader? That could be where the trouble
>lies.
Mary, it's not a question on AOL unless you're also willing to subscribe to a
premium news service. You can't use, for instance, the newsreaders built into
MSIE or Netscape with AOL. You're locked into their proprietary newsreader.
Why do I stay with them, you may ask? Because despite all their flaws, they
have a combination of services that's right for me. And because I have two ISPs
so when I get really annoyed with AOL I just flip back to the underlying ISP
through which I'm using AOL at this very moment.
erilar
lblan...@aol.com (Lblanch001) wrote:
> Erilar writes:
> >
> >Question is, what's your newsreader? That could be where the trouble
> >lies.
>
> Mary, it's not a question on AOL unless you're also willing to subscribe
> to a
> premium news service. You can't use, for instance, the newsreaders built
> into
> MSIE or Netscape with AOL. You're locked into their proprietary
> newsreader.
The old AOL straightjacket again, of course.
> Why do I stay with them, you may ask? Because despite all their flaws,
> they
> have a combination of services that's right for me. And because I have
> two ISPs
> so when I get really annoyed with AOL I just flip back to the underlying
> ISP
> through which I'm using AOL at this very moment.
I was very lucky in that AOL had no local connection when I started(and
still doesn't, as far as I know). I've used my daughter's, though.
Straightjacket 8-)