Talk:Hildebert and Everwin

Nice article

They seem to be both laymen. can this be clarified - if they are itis interesting at this date. Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Calkins notes that Hildebert "depicted himself in lay raiment". --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Some questions about the image in the De Civitati Dei manuscript

For user Vejvančický or other knowledgeable editors.

I edited this page with the intention of simply removing the nested brackets, which is something Wikipedia asks us to avoid using and, as is often the case, found myself taking the liberty of tweaking the text. I was left with these two queries.

1. I changed the word “allegedly” because it has generally has legal and quasi-legal connotations in English. (Thus in a court case: “the alleged offender” or in a newspaper: “X allegedly had an affair with Y”. In the latter example the idea is to cunningly mention the affair while avoiding the possibility of libel proceedings by using “allegedly”). The sense conveyed by “allegedly” isn’t really needed here. Scratching around for an alternative, I ended up with “It is thought that …” but perhaps some smart-Alec will come along and stick a “citation needed” superscript on what looks to me like a fairly small point. Is the supposition that Everwin was a junior of some sort based solely on his lower-status clothing, his small size and position at Hildebert’s feet in the image or is there other evidence? How does that square with “They are probably best known… in the next paragraph? If the image is the only evidence, perhaps we could use something like “Based on the size and position of etc. etc. it is possible that Everwin was etc. etc.”

2. I’m a little unsure about the phrase “…attached at the end of the manuscript”. In English, using “attached” in this way implies it was affixed at a later time or that it is a piece of parchment that is somehow clearly distinct (perhaps of slightly different size or different type of vellum?) from the rest of the manuscript. If that is definitely what is meant, then I think that “attached to the end” would be more idiomatic English. Conversely, if this page is just one of the several pages in the manuscript and they have all been bound in one operation, it would be better to write something along the lines of “…from an image that appears at the end of the manuscript”. If you have, by any chance, more information on the manuscript or even access to more detailed images, perhaps you could make the decision as to which description is better. I wouldn’t dream of changing this myself as I do not have the knowledge to hand.

Two things in the image are intriguing and could be investigated. Firstly, why is the table specifically labelled as Hildebert’s and not, say, the writing desk? (Perhaps it is purely to highlight his irritation at the mouse). Secondly, what is the significance of the lion supporting the desk? Although maybe somewhat stylised, it doesn’t look like a carved wooden stand for the desk, even allowing for the primitive use of perspective. Freeman501 (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Freeman501 for your explanations, suggestions and questions. I'm not a native English speaker and I know that my English is not perfect, thanks for your help. I'm afraid that the two images found in the manuscripts originating in Zdík's scriptorium are the only evidence of the existence of the artists. Much of the interpretation is speculative, as it often happens with the fragments of medieval art. I think that the most comprehensive source is Friedl's study from 1927, but I don't have it at hand right now. The table, the lion and the other iconographic elements are mysterious also to me and I can't find any detailed analysis of the images in modern sources. Here on Wikipedia, I can't speculate and make up my own interpretations. During my work on the article, I used various (not always 'scholarly') sources, but I can confirm that both the artists are known mainly from the 'mouse image'. My intention was to introduce the oldest known artists active in what is now the Czech Republic. There's a lot of questions and I'll try to find out more. Thanks for your interest in the article, and thanks again for the useful tweaks :) I apologize if you feel my response is insufficient, I'm no real 'expert' on medieval art :( Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Vejvančický, I certainly do not think your response is insufficient. In view of the age of the manuscript, I had a feeling that you would tell me there was not much information to go on. Of course, I think you are absolutely right in your reluctance to speculate and interpret. I know that sometimes we can avoid charges of “original research” by pleading “common sense” or “common knowledge”. Most people can probably remember seeing images of mediaeval manuscripts in TV documentaries or in books or even exhibitions and will have noticed how often the important figures (kings, saints etc.) are drawn in a larger size than their subordinates or companions, so possibly it would be safe to advance the same argument here. Similarly with the notation above the table – it seems to be common sense to infer that the artist wanted to highlight the fact that the table was Hildebert’s to underline his irritation at the mouse’s theft of what must be Hildebert’s bread on Hildebert’s table. It’s rather like a modern-day political cartoonist putting similar labels on certain elements of his drawing to make sure that everyone gets the joke.

Naturally, there’s no hurry to do anything about this: if neither of us particularly wants to change the article now, this note on the Talk page may interest other editors later on. By that time maybe you or another editor will have been able to consult Fridl and perhaps find that he has drawn some scholarly conclusions that can be safely cited.

Incidentally, if I could write in your native language as well as you write in mine, I would be very proud and pleased. Freeman501 (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)