The Ombrellino, Umbraculum or Pavilion and Medieval Tent Con

[Gregoire de Lyon]

Mystery solved?

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4317/10195/

In this image we see grommets at the top periphery or the pavilion and at the bottom. Nothing is coming out of the holes at the top, but at the bottom ropes are protruding - two per hole. Terminating at/above the holes are apparent channels sewn into the fabric wall of the tent. I believe what we are seeing is that the tent structure is indeed all fabric and ropes with the ropes inside the wall of the tent so that it can be held taught via the stakes at the bottom.

Thoughts?

[Jeff J]

Hoopy.

[Gregoire de Lyon]

Hoopy.

I don't know what you mean by that.

[Mac]

The ropes coming from the shoulder of the tent are at an angle that is roughly consistent with spreading the canopy, but there would need to be a lot more of them. This may be intended to be be seen as a rope-spread pavilion, but the sparseness of ropes is troubling. We see that the artist was not averse to showing all the ropes it needs to spread the bottom of the walls, so it seems strange that he would be so stingy with the canopy ropes.



I am inclined to see it as a possible rope-spread tend, but more likely to have a hoop of some sort.

Mac

[Gregoire de Lyon]

Mac-

The valence at the top features the same grommet style holes as the bottom. The same channels appear in the fabric of the roof as the walls. I agree that we don't see the ropes hiding the roof shape, but there is definitely something going on there...

[Mac]

Mac-

The valence at the top features the same grommet style holes as the bottom. The same channels appear in the fabric of the roof as the walls. I agree that we don't see the ropes hiding the roof shape, but there is definitely something going on there...

Greg,

I see what you mean about how the artist has given us those pairs of parallel lines. They are striking, but they may be nothing more than accurately rendered seams. They don't have the shading and volume that the lines on the King Rene tents have, but then again, this is almost 50 years earlier, and that sort of realism had not even begun to catch on.

What is it that you think is going on? Can you make us a sketch?

Mac

[Mac]

Here's another couple of tents from the same MS. http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4317/7134/

Again, the artist gives us a full compliment of ropes to spread the lower edge of the walls, but basically nothing to spread the canopy.



Mac

[Mac]

We have some similar tents in the Guiron le Courtois MS.

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4365/16766/

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4365/16812/

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4365/16817/

(unfortunately, even the gallery pics are too wide to post here)


This artist, like the other, only gives us guy ropes from the canopy when he needs them to hold the flaps up. This is not by any means unique. Lots of artist seem to only show a couple of canopy ropes, and those mostly in conjunction with the holding the door open. I sometimes wonder if we can take them quite literally. Can it be the case that guy ropes are put up and taken down as the need arises?

Mac

[James Arlen Gillaspie]

Or could it be that rendering all the ropes would have been terribly tedious and visually chaotic, posing huge compositional and aesthetic challenges?

Sorry, just had to say it.

I think I am favoring the hoop notion, though, for many of them.

[Gregoire de Lyon]

I'm going to blame it on the fever and say that I have jumped the gun.

I was thinking about how to maintain the wall structure, not the canopy structure. I agree that with the image I linked, there is no indication that interior ropes could be maintaining the canopy. To maintain the canopy, we would need to see ropes protruding at the roof shoulder. You of course all knew this and I am coming late to the clue party...

[Mac]

Damn, Greg.... And here I thought maybe you were seeing something I had missed.

I had that fever for over a week, and the cough is well into its third week. Early on, when the fever was at its worst, I was having dreams that would have made Hieronymus Bosch take notes. Get better soon, and try not to break any ribs coughing.

Mac

[Gregoire de Lyon]

I can talk about where the initial thought came from...

I've never noted the holes around the shoulder before. I've seen the crow's feet attachments, but never the holes.

We have similar holes at the foot of the tent, and there, ropes are clearly emerging from the holes. The ropes at the bottom obviously serve the purpose of maintaining the wall structure. It isn't clear, to me, whether they are just "stake loops" at the bottom, or if they travel to some point higher up the wall possibly all the way to the shoulder. That they travel all the way to the shoulder was my initial supposition.

On both the upper and lower holes there is a set of parallel lines corresponding to each hole. If those lines represented ropes under the fabric, we would be able to see that there is indeed a rope structure creating the upper canopy shape - specifically because all of the sets of parallel lines on the canopy radiate from the apex where they would need to originate to create the shape we see.

Now, with a slightly clearer head, I can see that it is true that we don't see the ropes protruding from the upper holes to 100% justify this line of reasoning. I am loathe to blame this on artistic necessity, however, the two ropes that *are* shown are 100% necessary to show because otherwise the front flaps would be floating in space.

I don't know....

[Mac]

Or could it be that rendering all the ropes would have been terribly tedious and visually chaotic, posing huge compositional and aesthetic challenges?

Sorry, just had to say it.

I think I am favoring the hoop notion, though, for many of them.

You are right to say it, and we need to consider it.

The following are pics taken from a search in Galfrid's Manuscript Miniatures page encompassing 1370 to 1420. I have pulled out all (?) of the examples where the artist has shown us guy ropes, excluding those that have been recently posted.



Here is an example where the artist has cluttered his composition with guy ropes at the opening of the walls, but has not shown us any at the sides where they would not have bothered anything. http://manuscriptminiatures.com/guiron- ... -338/1639/



Here is one where the artist did not seem to mind putting in guy ropes, but none of them are at angles that could spread the canopies to the shape depicted. ... a strong argument in favor of hoops. http://manuscriptminiatures.com/3993/9967/



Likewise here, where the guys are spread rather widely, but they still wouldn't pull the canopies tight. It looks like the artist staked them out just beyond the rather widely spreading walls. It's important to distinguish between the guys and the "masters". The later attach to the "tree" outside of the canopy and are usually spread rather widely. http://manuscriptminiatures.com/3993/9971/



Same artist, but he is coming to be one of my faves. He's showing a rope density and angle very similar to what I use on my tents. http://manuscriptminiatures.com/3993/9973/



Here we see what may or may not be intended to be guy ropes. If they are ropes, they are tied to the wall stakes. http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4281/9641/



In this rectangular tent, the guy ropes from the gable end only make sense if they are coming from a frame member. We will try to ignore the part where the artist seems to have lost track of the idea of staking them out. http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4284/9644/



Again, we have guy ropes which are headed for the ground too close to spread the canopy. The artist could have made them a different angle with no real effect on the composition.http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4287/9673/



A lot of rope clutter here, but again, the angles will not spread the canopies. http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4372/7097/



In this pic, the artist has only given us one guy rope. It should head directly toward the viewer, but through the miracle of medieval perspective it has been moved around to the side. I think it significant that the only rope the artist thought important enough to show was one near the opening of the walls. http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4372/7097/



A lot of guy ropes, but again, they are staked just barely beyond the walls. http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4733/9903/



This composition is cluttered with guy ropes, but only those near the opening of the walls. http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4121/8432/



Here the guys really do proceed at an angle that would spread the canopy. It does not support my theories, but I must include it anyway. http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4121/17158/



Here's another where the guys are depicted, but they could not spread the canopy. http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4303/9823/



These guys leave the frame of the picture. The artist could have made them be any angle at all, but he chose one where they could not actually spread the canopy. http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4523/7191/



The artist could have made the ropes a different angle without compromising the composition, but he chose to show them at an angle where they could not spread the canopy. http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4644/12895/



More of the usual. http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4354/7549/



Again, here, the ropes are shown relatively close to the walls even though it would not harm the composition to spread them wider. http://manuscriptminiatures.com/5168/16143/



Likewise. http://manuscriptminiatures.com/5168/16148/



Again. http://manuscriptminiatures.com/5168/16185/



These tents have more than the usual number of "masters" but no guys. http://manuscriptminiatures.com/5168/16194/



This is the sort of rope density I like to use on my tents. http://manuscriptminiatures.com/5182/16322/



Likewise. http://manuscriptminiatures.com/5182/16323/



Another by the same artist. http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/c ... allery.jpg




Mac

[Mac]

So.... What have we seen?

1).. The majority of depictions of tentage surveyed showed no ropes of any sort. (I did not post these)
2).. A large minority show ropes, but the ropes are drawn at angles which can not actually spread the canopies.
3).. In one example, the ropes are shown at an angle which would spread the canopy. To wit, nearly parallel to the ground.

Where does that lead us?

Per number 1, we might conclude that most tents had not ropes at all. While tents can be made to stand this way, I think this conclusion goes too far. Ropes are an easy detail to omit, and it seems likely that many artists just did not bother to show them.

Per number 2, we see ropes, but their angles are too steep to spread the canopies. We might conclude that the artists are loathe to show the ropes spreading at shallow enough angles because it would disrupt the composition of the picture. I think we have seen enough examples where the artist has already disturbed the composition by including ropes at all to discount that idea.

We could conclude that the artists habitually misrepresented the canopy angles. If we accepted that, we would be obliged to extend that idea to artists always misrepresenting the angles of tower and building roofs as well. However, surviving medieval roofs look pretty similar to what contemporary artists depicted, so I don't feel as though this should be our conclusion.

Per number 3, we might conclude that some tents of this time were indeed stretched on ropes. This is not at all unreasonable. We have depictions of tents from the early 14th C where there is not doubt that this is what the artist meant us to see. We also have tents from the 17th c and beyond whose canopies were stretched by ropes.

Overall, though, I think we can conclude that the typical tent of the period of this survey employed some sort of rigid or semi-rigid framework to spread the edge or shoulder of the canopy.

Mac

[Galleron]

So.... What have we seen?

1).. The majority of depictions of tentage surveyed showed no ropes of any sort. (I did not post these)
2).. A large minority show ropes, but the ropes are drawn at angles which can not actually spread the canopies.
3).. In one example, the ropes are shown at an angle which would spread the canopy. To wit, nearly parallel to the ground.

Where does that lead us?

Per number 1, we might conclude that most tents had not ropes at all. While tents can be made to stand this way, I think this conclusion goes too far. Ropes are an easy detail to omit, and it seems likely that many artists just did not bother to show them.

Per number 2, we see ropes, but their angles are too steep to spread the canopies. We might conclude that the artists are loathe to show the ropes spreading at shallow enough angles because it would disrupt the composition of the picture. I think we have seen enough examples where the artist has already disturbed the composition by including ropes at all to discount that idea.

We could conclude that the artists habitually misrepresented the canopy angles. If we accepted that, we would be obliged to extend that idea to artists always misrepresenting the angles of tower and building roofs as well. However, surviving medieval roofs look pretty similar to what contemporary artists depicted, so I don't feel as though this should be our conclusion.

Per number 3, we might conclude that some tents of this time were indeed stretched on ropes. This is not at all unreasonable. We have depictions of tents from the early 14th C where there is not doubt that this is what the artist meant us to see. We also have tents from the 17th c and beyond whose canopies were stretched by ropes.

Overall, though, I think we can conclude that the typical tent of the period of this survey employed some sort of rigid or semi-rigid framework to spread the edge or shoulder of the canopy.

Mac

I agree that a rigid frame at the canopy shoulder seems be the most common system during the period surveyed, and probably from the 13th to 16th c. There were certainly other, less common approaches: the pure rope spread, roof ribs, and wall slats:

http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.co ... tures.html

[Galleron]

We have some similar tents in the Guiron le Courtois MS.

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4365/16766/

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4365/16812/

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4365/16817/

(unfortunately, even the gallery pics are too wide to post here)


This artist, like the other, only gives us guy ropes from the canopy when he needs them to hold the flaps up. This is not by any means unique. Lots of artist seem to only show a couple of canopy ropes, and those mostly in conjunction with the holding the door open. I sometimes wonder if we can take them quite literally. Can it be the case that guy ropes are put up and taken down as the need arises?

Mac

The hook attachments for the Basel pavilion's guys would certainly allow this. I could certainly imagine using only a few guys one a calm day, with the expectation that you'd have your servants stake more if the wind picked up.

[PartsAndTechnical]

Or could it be that rendering all the ropes would have been terribly tedious and visually chaotic, posing huge compositional and aesthetic challenges?

Sorry, just had to say it.

I think I am favoring the hoop notion, though, for many of them.

I agree with this approach a lot. Like those images of faulds that rather frustratingly lack hinges, or buckles or lines to even suggest as much that they open up for the wearer to put the darn cuirass on...

Sketching and coloring is highly subjective, consciously or not. Reminds me of movie oops moments when they shoot a take, break for lunch, return and forget to include a prop or piece of clothing. Its there one minute, gone the next.

I can easily imagine an artist omitting more ropes or lines in an effort to emphasize the essence of the scene.

And less we forget, there is often more than one way to skin a cat. Or in this case, more than one way to support a tent.

[Gregoire de Lyon]

I just can't let this topic die...

In the photo below there appears to be an uneven lattice work on the ground inside the tent - could that be the shadow of a yurt type structure being cast by light passing through the canvas?

[Ckanite]

Honestly, I would have just written that off as a rug, but now that you've mentioned it, it sort of does...

[Gregoire de Lyon]

Honestly, I would have just written that off as a rug, but now that you've mentioned it, it sort of does...

That was my first impression too - rug - but if you look, there is still grass tufts visible and the color is grass green.

[Ckanite]

I see that, but the shadows also don't match up very well... it looks to me that the shadows for the lattice are 90° out of phase with the rest of the image but that could also just be an error on the artists part...

[Keegan Ingrassia]

Also, an odd detail to take the time to include, when he didn't provide cast shadows for any other subject in the scene. Looking closer...is that a window in the inside back wall of the tent?

[jester]

Found this image:

http://beo.revues.org/docannexe/image/4 ... all480.jpg

It's from the Islamic world but it pretty clearly shows the interior of the canopy structure and there's no structure. Nothing earth-shattering here, just thought I'd add the image in.

[Mac]

It does have the look of something that we are supposed to understand to be stretched by its ropes. Strictly speaking, the angles don't quite work, but they are close enough that I think we can be confident that the artist intended for us to see it that way.



The "tree" has two gold colored ferules, showing that it breaks into three sections. The canopy has a wooden disc at the center, like the Indo-Persian tent of Charles V in Granada (formerly in Madrid). http://www.spainisculture.com/en/obras_ ... 40651.html

Mac

[Mac]

I have been wasting spending some time today, looking at tents on Pinterest pages, and would like to present a tentative "rule".

--If the walls of a tent are taller than the canopy, it probably has an internal structure.
--If the canopy of a tent is taller than the walls, it is probably stretched on ropes.

Like all simple rules, this one will have exceptions, but I think it holds true in the vast majority of cases.

Mac

[Ernst]

Tipi anyone?
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8 ... /f288.item

BNF Français 2813 fo140v.jpg (73.16 KiB) Viewed 650 times