Littlestone
|
Re: Earliest (detailed) sketch of Stonehenge
Nov 28, 2006, 11:01
|
Bloody 'ell - that's fantastic!
Will be on show next year as well -
The drawing, recently identified by the art historian Christian Heck, has never been exhibited, but according to the Art Newspaper it will be seen next year in an exhibition at the Royal Academy in London, marking the 300th anniversary of the Society of Antiquaries.
Think Maev Kennedy got this bit wrong though -
An Anglo Saxon poet wondered about the origin of the stones...
The stones in the Anglo-Saxon poem The Ruin* are generally believed to be those of Roman Bath.
* "Well-wrought this wall: Wierds broke it.
The stronghold burst...
Snapped rooftrees, towers fallen,
the work of the Giants, the stonesmiths,
mouldereth.
Rime scoureth gatetowers
rime on mortar.
Shattered the showershields, roofs ruined,
age under-ate them.
And the wielders and wrights?
Earthgrip holds them - gone, long gone,
fast in gravesgrasp while fifty fathers
and sons have passed
Wall stood,
grey lichen, red stone..."
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Earliest (detailed) sketch of Stonehenge
Nov 28, 2006, 11:54
|
that's fantastic!
Isn't it!
I do hope some 19th century joker didn't sketch it in though! :(
I'm not convinced much can be deduced from the number of trilithons shown standing. They're shown in a circle so it could be just a slightly muddled symbolic representation of the whole circle.
|
Littlestone
|
Re: Earliest (detailed) sketch of Stonehenge
Nov 29, 2006, 19:17
|
|
I do hope some 19th century joker didn't sketch it in though!
Doubt it, the manuscript seems to have a pretty good provenance.
I'm not convinced much can be deduced from the number of trilithons shown standing. They're shown in a circle so it could be just a slightly muddled symbolic representation of the whole circle.
M'be, but the artist has gone out of the way to show the M&T joints - looks like he thought the tenons went straight through, which means he was aware of them but didn't actually shinny up there to check 'em out. Little bits of detail are interesting, like the chamfered corner of (especially) the right-hand trilithon in the foreground.
|
follow that cow
|
Re: Earliest (detailed) sketch of Stonehenge
Nov 29, 2006, 22:11
|
Paper seems too clean.
Ink seems too dark.
And did they really use lined paper, with margins, in 1440?
Also, why use the vernacular when the Latin for Stonehenge (if there is such) would have been more appropriate.
Enlighten me please!
Yours,
The Perpetually Perplexed
|
Littlestone
|
Re: Earliest (detailed) sketch of Stonehenge
Nov 30, 2006, 09:43
|
|
Paper seems too clean.
Ink seems too dark.
And did they really use lined paper, with margins, in 1440?
Also, why use the vernacular when the Latin for Stonehenge (if there is such) would have been more appropriate.
The only image in the pubic domain at present seems to be the one that appeared in The Guardian on 27 November; that looks like a black and white photo of the original. I doubt if the original itself is that black and white, in fact the drawing of Stonehenge and the 'cartouche' to the right of it might even be in red ink. Difficult to tell, but the manuscript does look as if it's made of paper (paper was in use in France from around 1350 but not in England until nearly a hundred and fifty years later). Dunno about lines and margins in MSS of the Middle Ages (the lines in the Scala Mundi manuscript might even be watermarks).
I think it was not unusual to refer to place names in the vernacular. There's a fourteenth century manuscript in Latin in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge that refers to the Rollright Stones as Rollendrith - Ab incolis autem vocatur locus ille Rollendrith. (Though by the inhabitants that place is called Rollendrith).
You're right to be cautious however, and I think the illustration will come under a lot of scrutiny between now and when it's exhibited at the Royal Academy next year.
|
rocknicker
|
Re: Earliest (detailed) sketch of Stonehenge
Nov 30, 2006, 11:02
|
|
could the lines be superimposed to aid academics to read it?
|
Littlestone
|
Re: Earliest (detailed) sketch of Stonehenge
Nov 30, 2006, 11:24
|
|
rocknicker wrote: could the lines be superimposed to aid academics to read it?
Dunno, it's all guess work 'til we get to see the original. There's another technique for drawing lines (though don't think it applies here) and that's to draw them with an un-inked stylus. The lines are quite visible under raked light but practically disappear under overhead lighting.
The other interesting thing in the Guardian article is the mention that, "There are two earlier images of Stonehenge, one in the British Library and one in the Parker Library in Cambridge..." I wonder what they're like - and does the article actually mean earlier or just early?
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Earliest (detailed) sketch of Stonehenge
Nov 30, 2006, 11:33
|
I wonder what they're like - and does the article actually mean earlier or just early?
I think it means earlier because it refers to the newly discovered one as "early" and "earliest detailed" so t'others are earlier but not detailed presumably.
Incidentally, what is the spelling for Stonehenge that they used?
|
Littlestone
|
Re: Earliest (detailed) sketch of Stonehenge
Nov 30, 2006, 14:27
|
|
Incidentally, what is the spelling for Stonehenge that they used?
Dunno, I'd assumed it was as now - Stonehenge but the more I look at the ninth letter, which should be a g, I'm not so sure. In fact the more I look at the whole bit of manuscript the more puzzling it becomes (that's not to say it's not authentic). The top five lines seem to be by a different hand than the bottom three, and the name Stonehenge itself seems to be a third hand (compare the ts). The name Stonehenge also looks to be in a more modern hand - maybe it was added above the sketch at a later date.
Fascinating, and certainly needs someone with the right expertise to look at it.
|
follow that cow
|
Stonehenge: Constable .v. Turner
Nov 30, 2006, 23:13
|
Constable http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/11805
v
Turner http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/13941
An almost identical painting, 11 years apart, by two masters, both said to have laid the foundations for impressionism. How awesome is that.
If I had to choose (I wish!), I'd plump for John's.
Why?
Although both are radiant and sublime and brilliant; John's surprises me. Everytime!
Any views, anyone?
'Art for arts sake
Money for Gods sake' - The other 'Lovin Spoonful'.
|
