Dating of Queen Mary Apocalypse, c. 1300-25, by Armor?

[Cliff Rogers]

The Queen Mary Apocalypse (http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminated ... art=190215) is dated first quarter of the fourteenth century. I'd like to narrow that down a bit. It's an English manuscript. Soldiers are shown in mail armor, some with kettle hats or great helms, some with simple round bascinets (?), some with coifs apparently over round helmets. There are no ailettes shown. Shields are classic heater shape. Hauberks have long skirts. (note esp. fos. 16 and 16v) No plate except poleyns. Based on all that, and the similarity of the helm on fo. 37 (though boxier) to the one on the memorial of William de Staunton, d. 1312, I'm leaning towards a likely date of c. 1300-1307, noting (according to Boutell's _Monumental Brasses_, p. 34) that the last brass which has no plate supplement except knee-guards is dated 1306.

Recognizing that dating an illumination by armor is problematic, I'd still like to hear any thoughts, particularly pointing out distinctive elements that match other more securely dated MSS.

[RandallMoffett]

Do we know if anything in the text is date specific? Text can often be the best way to date these MS.

RPM

[Klaus the Red]

I don't think it's possible to fine-tune it better than a quarter-century based on armor alone. There are too many undefinables. Was the effigy you are using as a yardstick made during the decedent's lifetime, or during the year of his actual death, or by his heirs ten years later? Did the illuminator live in a part of England frequented by men-at-arms wearing the latest harness, and did he get a chance to see them on a regular basis? Did he know what he was looking at when he saw it? Or was he simply following a visual formula that had been in use in his particular scriptorium for the last decade? As for the armor itself, who's to say when a particular bit of kit became fashionable and widespread enough to make an impact on artistic depictions?

You see the difficulty? All we can say for certain is, "armor of type X does not appear in artistic depictions prior to year Y, so far as we can tell from the fragmentary evidence we have." There's really no way to prove or disprove that something was in use ten years earlier or later than your target year.

K

[Klaus the Red]

But as to dating it by effigy comparison within the limitations we have, you may find Doug Strong's analysis project of use:

http://talbotsfineaccessories.com/armou ... lysis.html

[Ernst]

According to Sandler 1986, illuminated by three artists: The Queen Mary Master (ff. 1-16v), Hand II (ff. 17-24v, 30, 34-45v), Hand III (25-29v, 31v-32v). The attribution to the Queen Mary Master or to his workshop has been rejected by Dennison 1994 on a stylistic and technical basis; Hand II has been related to Royal D II (The 'Welles Apocalypse') and Hand III to Brussels, Royal Library II 282 (Apocalypse and Lumiere as lais).

You might cross reference dating on the Welles Apocalypse & Royal Library II 282 to see if the date range can be narrowed.

[^]

Trying to adjust the date just based on comparison to an item or two in effigies is a slippery slope.
I do think you are correct that it is closer to c1300 then c.1325 for a variety of reasons one of which is armour, the fact that you don't see much 'plate' armour other then knees. And you could go through all sorts of visual clues like this comparing it to other English pieces from the late-13th and early 14th century. But without a document attesting its production your not going to get much closer then a decade or so, you simply face too many problems.

[Baron Alcyoneus]

1307 is the date I usually see, and yes, there are things that make you go "huh???" in it.

I like those.

[Cliff Rogers]

Trying to adjust the date just based on comparison to an item or two in effigies is a slippery slope.
I do think you are correct that it is closer to c1300 then c.1325 for a variety of reasons one of which is armour, the fact that you don't see much 'plate' armour other then knees. And you could go through all sorts of visual clues like this comparing it to other English pieces from the late-13th and early 14th century. But without a document attesting its production your not going to get much closer then a decade or so, you simply face too many problems.

Yes, I realize all the difficulties and know the best that can be done is an educated guess. I'm not trying to "prove" anything, just to weigh probabilities and give my readers the benefit of my (developed with helpo from this forum, hopefully) expertise.

Anyway, it does seem to me that the absence of ailettes or plate makes it _unlikely_ to be (though it's certainly not impossible it could be) later than 1310, when the armor shown would already be quite old-fashioned, right?

Cliff

[Jan]

Okay...approaching this from a completely different angle...

Looking at the calligraphy and illumination, stylistically it is very similar to what was seen in the 13th Century, with large flat areas of color with minimal to no use of shading to show draping. On the other hand, the hand has a lot more flow than the precesis [sp] usually seen in the 13th. Given those two things, as an educated guess I would put it later than the Nuremberg Hours (which I just finished a piece based on) but before the Luttrel.

Please remember to take nearly everything you see in illumination with a certain grain of salt and to use a critical eye. After all, I've never actually seen nuns harvesting penises from a tree.

[Ernst]

The most modern armor seen is the gauntlets in folios in 23v and 24v. What's the earliest date anyone's willing to put on these? I wouldn't be surprised by 1315-1325, but that's why the BL conservatively gives it a "first quarter of the 14th century".

[Ernst]

FWIW, the contemporary (1st quarter, 14th c.) Royal 15 D II Welles Apocalypse which may share partial illustration by the same hand.

http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminated ... art=150402

The most advanced armor feature in the Welles seems to be the common, though not universal, use of couters -- elbow cops. Doug Strong's effigy analysis would suggest 1320-1340 for such defenses.

http://talbotsfineaccessories.com/armou ... figies.htm

[Cliff Rogers]

The most modern armor seen is the gauntlets in folios in 23v and 24v. What's the earliest date anyone's willing to put on these? I wouldn't be surprised by 1315-1325, but that's why the BL conservatively gives it a "first quarter of the 14th century".

Thanks, that's just the sort of observation I was looking for.

[Cliff Rogers]

The most advanced armor feature in the Welles seems to be the common, though not universal, use of couters -- elbow cops. Doug Strong's effigy analysis would suggest 1320-1340 for such defenses.

http://talbotsfineaccessories.com/armou ... figies.htm

Also useful, thanks

Cliff

[RandallMoffett]

I would be very wary of using effigies and in a lesser way artwork to date anything for armour. To me effigies can lag behind by a decade sometimes more from what comes up fairly common in text. That said part of this issue for effigies is the way they are dated is often very loose on evidence besides date of death. It seems likely that many effigies were perhaps built on a template design which could really cause some delays in dating as even if the effigy was bought or 'finished' some years after the date of death much of it may have been done in advance. Really it is a shame we do not have a better idea of the industry. Nigel Saul gave a great lecture on such monuments in Southampton a few years ago and it was interesting but left many further questions.

To me art is great to get an idea of what the heck the text is describing.

Just a thought on effigies and art in general for dates.

RPM

[Galfrid atte grene]

Effigies are great for a lot of things but not for dating, at least not more precisely than +/-15 years or so. Even if you know when the monument was commissioned, created, and installed into a church (records like these exist for some), the artist's choice about what style of armour to depict is still unknown. Like Randall said, the artist could have followed a decade old template.

[Ernst]

Illuminators might also be relying on standard forms, or copy older manuscripts.

Coming from the opposite direction, the spangen-construction chapel de fer shown in folios 16 & 19 seem more 13th century than 14th. What's the latest date anyone has noticed this construction appear in manuscripts?