Date of Image

Gregoire de Lyon · Post by **Gregoire de Lyon** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 3:58 pm

Hi all-

I've seen this image dated to 1375. I'm beginning to question that though - anyone have an idea of what would be a more appropriate time frame for it?

Thanks.

Strongbow · Post by **Strongbow** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 7:12 pm

I'd say 1400 +/- 5 years. 1375 is too early IMHO.

Gregoire de Lyon · Post by **Gregoire de Lyon** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:13 pm

Strongbow wrote:I'd say 1400 +/- 5 years. 1375 is too early IMHO.

First off, I'm not disagreeing with you.

Why would you say that? What elements of the image date it to 1400 for you?

Konstantin the Red · Post by **Konstantin the Red** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:30 pm

I'd split the difference. All those lentners put it roughly contemporaneous with Walter von Hohenklingen, who perished in battle in 1386.

But the green gown at the far left, hmm, that's not 1370s, is it?

The bascinet visors are developing the droop-snouted profile, which is known to be a later feature, if only from illuminations. No extant droop- or bag-snout visors are known in the metal, but are all over period art.

chef de chambre · Post by **chef de chambre** » Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:22 am

That image is from a book, the chronicles of St. Denis, I think, which I believe was completed c late 1390's, so we have an end date for it, but I don't know how long the book was *in* the making, which in the case of illuminated deluxe manuscripts, could be several or more years.

Gregoire de Lyon · Post by **Gregoire de Lyon** » Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:34 am

chef de chambre wrote:That image is from a book, the chronicles of St. Denis, I think, which I believe was completed c late 1390's, so we have an end date for it, but I don't know how long the book was *in* the making, which in the case of illuminated deluxe manuscripts, could be several or more years.

Thanks Chef. I knew that it was from St. Denis, and I knew that the 1390 date was assigned to it, but I wasn't sure what that date was based off of - a known "publication" date or an estimation from the styles of the images. Like I said, I had also seen a c. 1375 for that specifc image.

Perhaps a more appropriate question, which was partially answered by Konstantin, is what time period would you put a kit based off of this illumination in? I am getting really close to completing this look on the field and would like to be self consistant off the field as well.

Murdock · Post by **Murdock** » Sun Feb 24, 2008 11:58 am

Everyone note the guy fighting armoured with a closed visor...

with sword and buckler.

He's front and center of his side mid bridge

Strongbow · Post by **Strongbow** » Sun Feb 24, 2008 7:53 pm

Gregoire de Lyon wrote:
Strongbow wrote:I'd say 1400 +/- 5 years. 1375 is too early IMHO.

First off, I'm not disagreeing with you.

Why would you say that? What elements of the image date it to 1400 for you?

Welp, Chef gave you the most complete answer. So somewhere around 1395ish.

My reasoning was based on the style of the coat-armour, particularly the loose "gown" on the left, and the distinctive "Droop snout" visors which are very late 14th c I think

Konstantin the Red · Post by **Konstantin the Red** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:27 am

I knew the droops were later; what I don't have for them is dates, earliest and latest. Chef? You're often good for data like that, though anyone who can tell me, my thanks to you in advance.

I don't think there is effigial depiction -- just illuminations.

chef de chambre · Post by **chef de chambre** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:21 pm

Honestly, I think the "droop snout" is a perspective problem of the artist, and that they are trying to depict late bascinet visors like the 'bullet nose' example in the Churburg.

The sculptor of effigies does not have the same problem of perspective as the artist painting on a page, so I think that is why we do not see these in effigies.

Winterborne · Post by **Winterborne** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:09 pm

Hey, those archers are too close. They should stand back further and give those guys a chance. Hahaha.

I had only seen fragments of this image before, not the whole thing in context. Is that a specific battle, where a half-destroyed bridge is defended, or is a 'biblical' battle depiction?

Looks like we got something right at Pennsic!

Gregoire de Lyon · Post by **Gregoire de Lyon** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:01 pm

It is a battle from the HYW on a bridge over the Seine. More details are probably available in the St. Denis manuscript.

Strongbow · Post by **Strongbow** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:10 pm

chef de chambre wrote:Honestly, I think the "droop snout" is a perspective problem of the artist, and that they are trying to depict late bascinet visors like the 'bullet nose' example in the Churburg.

The sculptor of effigies does not have the same problem of perspective as the artist painting on a page, so I think that is why we do not see these in effigies.

So, your opinion is that the "Droop snout" is an artistic artifact? Hmmm... interesting. We need Doug Strong to chime in on this one...

chef de chambre · Post by **chef de chambre** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:22 pm

Only in drawn or painted art - I think only in miniatures , even (possibly on tapestries, which were woven to 'cartoons'), showing the problem of perspective evolving in art - the late 14th century is really the end of the lack of three dimensional perspective in art, but which is not perfected until later in the renaissance.

I don't know of any art in the third dimension depicting a 'droop snout'.

Murdock · Post by **Murdock** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:44 am

"It is a battle from the HYW on a bridge over the Seine. More details are probably available in the St. Denis manuscript. "

Yeah i'm thinking it's English on the right French on the left.

Look the archer is as apparently armoured as everyone else. Well he apprently has a lighter helm with no aventail but other than that.