Talk:Illustrated manuscript

POV tag

I have added the tag because the article has been created to promote a personal and eccentric POV by User:Dbachmann, who believes that manuscripts illustrated with pictures do not count as Illuminated manuscripts, which he thinks should only be those "decorated" (a term he has not defined) as opposed to illustated. This is completely contrary to all standard usage - for him the Tres Riches Heures, possibly the most famous illuminated manuscript, is "illustrated". The article should be merged with illuminated manuscript, with some of the material that is not already there added. Johnbod 18:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

eccentric, huh? I cited the definition of "illuminated" per OED. You have not cited anything. We can continue this discussion when you have found some source, alright? dab (𒁳) 21:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

See below Johnbod 15:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

References

• 1) First, read this quote carefully:
• Calkins, Robert G. Illuminated Books of the Middle Ages. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1983. Page 15 (first text page):

"...art historians, who study the decorations, usually small painted pictures. These illustrations are often called miniatures, not because of their size but rather after the minium or orange lead used... Actually the miniatures may constitute only a small proportion of the ornament in a manuscript, for frequently the text also contains decorated letters and penned calligraphic flourishes....

-you will see you are misunderstanding the meaning of decoration, which you take to be abstract or non-illustrative, and of miniature , which you take to mean very small.

Now look at the following on-lines refs (my bolds):

• 2) http://www.artlex.com/ def Illumination

"Illuminated Manuscript" from http://art-history.on-topic.net/art_history/Illumination Books written by hand, decorated with paintings and ornament of different kinds. The word illuminated comes from a usage of the Latin word 'illuminare' in connection with oratory or prose style, where it means 'adorn'. The decorations are of three main types: (a) miniature, or small pictures, not always illustrative, incorporated into the text or occupying the whole page or part of the border; (b) initial letters either containing scenes (historiated initials) or with elaborate decoration; (c) borders, which may consist of miniatures, occasionally illustrative, or more often are composed of decorative motifs. They may enclose the whole of the text space or occupy only a small part of the margin of the page. Manuscripts are for the most part written on parchment or vellum. From the 14th century paper was used for less sumptuous copies. Although a number of books have miniatures and ornaments executed in outline drawing only, the majority are fully colored. By the 15th century illumination tended more and more to follow the lead given by painters, and with the invention of printing the illuminated book gradually went out of fashion. During the 15th and 16th centuries illuminations were added to printed books.

• 3)"Illumination" from same

The decoration of manuscripts, one of the most common forms of medieval art; because of its monastic origins, usually of religious texts. The practice extends from heavy decorations of initial letters and inter-woven margin patterns (as in Celtic examples) to miniatures and and full-page illuminations, often of a formal and grandiose kind (as in Byzantine manuscripts).' Rich colors are a common feature, in particular a luxirious use of gold and silver. Illuminations survived the advent of printing for some time and only died out with the rise of printed illustration in the 16 century.

• 4)"illumination" from here: http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/don/dt/dt1802.html

The decoration of a manuscript or book with painted pictures, ornamented letters, designs, or a combination thereof, in colors and (usually) burnished gold or silver. The design was first drawn and then sized with a mixture of clay, gypsum or lime, followed by an adhesive (glair). The gold or silver leaf was laid on and burnished, and the colors were then applied.

Although illumination is considered to be a medieval art, its origins can be traced back to illustrated Egyptian papyrus rolls and especially to Greco-Roman book illustration. Classical artists illustrated the text of codices with continuous chronological sequences of scenes, which often filled the entire page.

The word "miniature," which comes from the Latin minimum (red lead, which the Romans used for initial letters), is frequently used with reference to the individual pictures in an illuminated work; however, a "miniature painting" is not synonymous with "illustration," (a typo here it seems - they must mean illumination) because illuminations are usually executed in gold or silver while miniatures generally are not.

• 5) from here: http://www.ifla.org/VII/s30/pub/mg1.htm#5 NB German equivalents!

282. ILLUMINATED MANUSCRIPT Manuscript adorned by hand with richly coloured ornamental letters, decorative designs, or illustrations. DU - verlucht handschrift (n); boekverluchting (f); illuminatie (f) FR - manuscrit enluminé (m) GR - Illumination (f); Buchmalerei (f); Miniaturmalerei (f); Bilderhandschrift (f) IT - manoscritto miniato (m) SP - iluminación (f) SW - illumination; bokillumination; bokmåleri

283. ILLUSTRATED BOOK Book that includes visual images to explain, augment, or embellish the text. DU - geïlustreerd boek (n) FR - livre illustré (m) GR - illustriertes Buch (n) IT - libro illustrato (m) SP - libro ilustrado (m) SW - illustrerad bok

284. ILLUSTRATION See also PLATE (432) A drawing, photograph, or other image representation designed to decorate or to clarify a text. DU - illustratie (f); afbeelding (f) FR - illustration (f) GR - Illustration (f) IT - illustrazione (f)

- no "illustrated manuscripts" here, or in any other Glossary I have seen! What on earth is the distinction supposed to be - there is none! How would you classify the following, and why: Utrecht Psalter, Vienna Dioscurides, Velislai biblia picta, Matthew Paris's Chronicle, and examples of the Biblia pauperum?

You now have to produce credible references to support your view that there is a difference - so far you have only produced two websites, one Indian, and one book-title. Let's see some text clearly defining this supposed category from Glossaries of art terms, major text-books etc.

It is clear from the references I have cited that illustration in medieval manuscripts is completely subsumed by "illumination". I accept that after about 1600 the term illuminated is less likely to be used, but that is a very different thing from the wild assertions in your Illustrated manuscript - which you now seem to be back-pedalling on. How is the Codex Wallerstein categorised in German, other than as a fechtbuch - as a Bilderhandschrift perhaps?

What in this detailed account http://freywild.ch/wiki/index.php/Codex_Wallerstein supports your idea that it is not an illuminated manuscript? It clearly falls under the definitions above.

The categorization scheme is not mine - I have only done anything on it in the last few days. You yourself categorised several of your articles as ill Ms, and have still not described where the supposed dividing line occurs. You won't take your views to the article talk page, where there is current discussion of categorization.

I think it is clear you have never read or seen the Olson book you cite - it would be interesting indeed to see how the author deals with the matter. Her sub-title Visual Textuality In Medieval Illustrated Manuscripts hardly suggests she shares your view! Leaving the indian website aside, are you suggesting that any of the 27 manuscripts the Heidelburg site you link to shows would not normally be described as illuminated? If so which ones? The original German version of the page uses "Bilderhandschriften", and the French version "Manuscrits enluminés de la Bibliotheca Palatina" - both = illuminated - see reference above.

Your "references" are, to be blunt, meaningless. The whole article is POV/OR. Johnbod 16:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel I must agree here with Johnbod. This article has things almost completely backwards. Illustration is not a late development in the history of illustrated manuscripts, it is the beginning. If we look at the few scraps of illustrated papyrus we have left, such as the Heracles Papyrus and the Romance Papyrus, they are illustrated manuscripts. Likewise for the Vatican Virgil, the Roman Virgil and the Ambrosian Iliad. In the same manner the early Christian manuscripts like the Rossano Gospels, the Vienna Genesis, the Cotton Genesis, the Rabula Gospels. See also the Vienna DioscuridesRepresentative art was the core of ancient manuscript decoration. It was the Insular art, which did not have a strong tradition of figural representation which introduced the idea of decorated text. Even then most of the Great monuments are illustrated. (Keeping in mind that since the illustration of the Codex Manesse is nothing more than a large number of author portraits, which would imply that the Evagelist portraits are equally illustrative.) Most of the major monuments of Carolingian Illumination are illustrated. The is they contain large pieces of illustration, either of the text or as author portraits. Same for the "Mozarabic" manuscripts, Likewise for the Ottonian, Romanesque, Gothic and Renaissance manuscripts. Also true for the continuations into the modern period, such as the Icelandic manuscripts. Again, also true for the revival efforts of like those of William Blake, William Morris and the St. John's Bible. In short the vast majority of manuscripts considered "illuminated" are also "illustrated". There is nothing that sets the manuscripts of 15th century Germany apart.

The real break point in manuscripts is between those that are decorated (including those decorated with illustrations), and those that are not. There are two reasons. First, for those manuscripts that are not decorated, the only modern people interested in them are those concerned with text, editors, historians, linguists, literary critics, and the like. For those that are decorated, the people most concerned with the MS are art-historians (For example, the British Library, Harley 1775 is of some importance to Biblical textual criticism. The Book of Kells is not. Guess which one has a facsimile that sells for $18,000) The second is that, for the majority of the history of the book, decoration meannt that another specialist or had to be involved in the production of the book beyond the scribe. This means that, as a rule, decorated manuscripts are luxury items in a way the non-doecorated manuscripts are not. The same conditions do not apply to manuscripts that are decorated, but not illustrated. Dsmdgold 01:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with almost everything you say, including the "vast majority", but not necessarily including the "There is nothing that sets the manuscripts of 15th century Germany apart". But I don't think this addresses the question. Of course a manuscript with decorations will fetch a higher price, all other things equal, than one without. That doesn't change the simple observation that decoration!=illustration, which is really all this is about. dab (𒁳) 12:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it is pointless to ask again for some references on this? I have supplied a large number to show that illustration is a subset of illumination and decoration, as far as the universal terminology in art history in English is concerned. Johnbod 12:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

you have done nothing of the kind. you have shown that an "illustration" is something that does "explain, augment, or embellish the text" / "designed to decorate or to clarify a text", which is precisely what I said all along. I could send you to logical disjunction and wikt:or now, but I think we should drop it at this point. dab (𒁳) 13:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It is true that illustration!=decoration, but only in the same way that cake!=food. I understand your point given elsewhere of the difference between "pragmatic" illustrations versus "decorative" illustrations. However, you seem not realize how long these "pragmatic" illustrations have been about. Almost all scientific and medical texts from the antiquity forward contain "pragmatic" illustrations and these illustrations were often integral to the text. These range from rather crude sketches found in mathematical texts, without which the text would almost impossible to understand, to the beautiful illustrations of luxury manuscripts like the Vienna Dioscurides. (As a side note, you mention elsewhere that illustrations where "added by the copyist". This is not true. The illustrations of the Dioscurides text were copied along with the text.) From an art-historical standpoint, there is nothing about these "pragmatically" illustrations that separates them from "decorative" illustrations. They were executed by the same artists, using the same techniques and the same styles. As it stands this article needs to be rewritten starting with the Dramatic Ramesseum Papyrus and moving forward through antiquity and the Middle Ages into the Renaissance. The phrase "independent images, that is, illustrations that go beyond miniatures used to embellish the text" misunderstands the term miniature, in a dramatic way, since any illustration, of any size in a manuscript is a miniature. Given that, I'm not even sure what is meant by "independent image". Is this a visual thing, (i. e. really big illustrations, or illustrations not contained within a historiated initial) or does it have to do with the supposed divide between "pragmatic" and "decorative" illustrations? Dsmdgold 13:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

yes, let us take crude sketches found in mathematical texts. I appreciate that an art historian doesn't care whether an illustration is "pragmatic" or not, and as a rule, I imagine an art historian would be completely uninterested in crude mathematical sketches anyway. Do you insist that any crude mathematical sketch automatically qualifies as "decoration" then? If you do, let me drop the subject and simply accept that you do. Of course the art historian will only see art, since anything that isn't art doesn't fall within his field. That's fine. But there is another way of categorizing things. Imagine I want to look at the history of technical illustrations. From this angle, I will care not just about the artistic relevance of an illustration, but also about its function. Any decoration, that is, any image that is used to "embellish" as opposed to "explain", falls outside my scope. I recognize I shouldn't use "miniature" as I did: the intended reading is "go beyond [miniatures used to embellish the text]", that is, I do not intend to make a claim on whether my "illustrations" may also be regarded "miniature", it is just that I want to look at them as illustrations, regardless of their art-historical classification as miniature, that is, their status of "illustration" is independent of whether they are painted or etched or screen-printed, or whatever, while their status of "miniature" is not. dab (𒁳) 14:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Mathmatical illustrations (let us hope not too crude) would certainly count as decoration - for example I categorised the Opus Majus as an illuminated manuscript, before removing it as the article covered the work/text in general rather than a specific MS. Speaking personally, I am not uninterested in technical illustration at all, but it is not an area I know much about, and one about which much less is published than artistic illuminations. Hence my keenness to get the fightbooks into the category. Johnbod 15:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding, mathematical sketches, I must admit that I have not been entirely consistent in this area. From a strict definition, I would say yes, that almost any illustration made to go with the text is decoration, and could interest Art historians. (Marginal doodles are whole other issue.) Art historians are interested in some mathematical sketches for a couple of reasons. A mathematical illustration creates the same problems as any other illustration or decoration for a scribe or artist considering the physical relationship of image to text. For early manuscript fragments every illustrated manuscript fragment is valuable because there are so few of them. Mathematical illustrations may also be useful for understanding the history of drawing techniques, such as the use of compass for drawing circles, or the use of shading to create the illusion of depth. Later sketches are noted by art-historians in inverse proportion to their crudity. However, I must admit that I did not classify Mathematical text fragment (Berlin, Staatliche Museen, pap. 11529) as an illuminated manuscript when I created it. I will note that I encountered this fragment in book by one the most respected art historians of the twentieth century, and his interest in it was, as I describe above, as a study in the physical relationship of the text to the image. You will note that would difficult to find many illustrations that are cruder. I cannot now say why I did not classify the fragment as illuminated, but in light of this discussion, I would now.

I can see that an article on technical illustration within the manuscript tradition would be a good thing, but this article is not it. Not one of the individual manuscripts mentioned in this article has illustrations that "explain", rather than "embellish" the text. I would think that an article on technical drawing would need to take note of mathematical texts, scientific and medical texts, and practical texts such as the fighting manuals. However it would be a bad thing to try to discuss technical drawing in isolation from the general art of the period. For the most part these illustrations are executed by the same artists with the same training as those execution "embellishing" illustrations.

The idea of a separate category for technically illustrated manuscripts seems a bad idea to me. (Leaving aside the issue of how such manuscripts as the Luzerner Schilling fit this definition of the category.) Art Historians are vitally interested in the relationship of the text to the image in illustrations. A prime goal of art historians is to determine why an artist chose a particular image and used a particular style to decorate or illustrate a manuscript. Understanding the relationship between the text and the image is a vital first step. However, I do not see the utility of categorizing manuscripts by any particular relationship between text and illustrated manuscripts. (I, for example, would also oppose a category for manuscripts with allegorical illustrations.) Dsmdgold 01:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)