I would have to check Berger again, but IIRC the Bodleian is a direct copy of spirensis, just like Trient and Paris and Munich version. All copies we have now go back to the codex spirensis. But Berger points out that all versions show strong contemporary influences except M2, which shows most peculiarieties of Carolingian / Late Roman (as comparison Vergilius Vaticanus etc.) art.
All in all it is too complicated to come to any sensible conclusions anyway. The pictures were copied in Carolingian times from an original (?), then the carolingian copy was copied again, and these copies are what we have... Not a quite reliable source...
Quote:Is the Munich version older and/or more reliable than the Bodleian version?
As I understand it, the Bodleian version was copied in 1436 for Pietro Donato, Bishop of Padua. The Paris version was made at about the same time, possibly for the Milanese humanist Pier Candido Decembrio, who referred to it in his commonplace book in 1437. The Munich copy was presented to the Count Palatine, Otteinrich, in 1550 but had, apparently, been made in 1542. As noted above, he was dissatisfied with the illustrations and the second set (M2) was traced directly from the Codex Spirensis. However, although closer to the Carolingian original, these need not necessarily be more accurate in all details than the Bodleian copy. The Bodleian illustrations are 114 years earlier than M2 and the Chapter of Speyer Cathedral at first declined to give permission for the M2 tracings to be made because of the fragile condition of the Spirensis. It is possible, therefore, that it was in better condition when the Bodleian copy was made and that deterioration of the illustrations in the intervening period may have resulted in some details being lost. See J. J. G. Alexander, 'The Illustrations of the Anonymous, de Rebus Bellicis' in M. W. C. Hassall & R. I. Ireland, De Rebus Bellicis. Part 1: Aspects of the De Rebus Bellicis. Papers presented to Professor E. A. Thompson, (BAR International Series 63) Oxford 1979, 11-15.
Michael King Macdona
And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Quote:It is possible, therefore, that it was in better condition when the Bodleian copy was made and that deterioration of the illustrations in the intervening period may have resulted in some details being lost.
Yes, absolutely. But then again, it´s an other Schrödinger´s cat. :unsure:
Quote:This might be an old saw, but I was looking at this picture from the manuscript of de Rebus Bellicis (a medieval copy, of course), and wondered what the guy on the left was wearing around his torso:
It looks like a strap fastened around the right shoulder, with some sort of item fastened against the left chest...
There are other odd things in the picture too - what's he got hanging off his belt on the left of the picture?
And why are those leggings strung up in a tree? :errr:
I believe your on the right track Nathan. I think that the object on the figures left side is either the hilt of a sword or a belt buckle. I do think the object hanging from the belt on the left is an axe. Axes were used by Late Roman infantry, Ammianus records a battle where they were used and one of the fabracae pictures in the Notitia shows spears, swords and axes. I think the objects hanging from the tree are leg armour, we know from several depictions and sculptures that leggings came in individual pieces, as would have leg armour. Why I believe that it is leg armour is that has no one noticed that the whole tree scene is very reminiscent of Roman trophy scenes, especially with the two Thoracomachus hanging on their stands (I think that the infantry man is depicted as standing there in just his tunic showing his armour displayed on standes to show what he wears both on top and underneath)
Quote:(I think that the infantry man is depicted as standing there in just his tunic showing his armour displayed on standes to show what he wears both on top and underneath)
I think so too. The two garments on the right are presumably the 'thoramachus', worn under the armour, and the 'Libyan hide' over-tunic for wet weather (this seems to have been the suggested invention of the author...)
The accompanying text to this image ends with:
So when, as we have said, the soldier has donned this Thoracomachus (which has adopted this name from the Greek because it protects the body) and has put on socci, too (that is boots), and iron greaves, with a helmet on his head and a shield and a sword fitted to his side and has caught up his lances in his hand he will be fully armed to enter an infantry battle.
So the things on the tree are the greaves and helmet, with the 'socci' at the base of the tree. No mention of an axe though - or body armour, which is perhaps stranger...
Isn't it fascinating how successive artists copy the picture without the slightest understanding of what they're painting?! Nathan's shoulder holster appears to have started life as a piece of shoulder armour. (Or is it vice versa? :dizzy: )
Quote:So the things on the tree are the greaves and helmet, with the 'socci' at the base of the tree. No mention of an axe though - or body armour, which is perhaps stranger...
I remember that discussion Michael, it was very informative. I'm still of the opinion that the author of 'De Rebus Bellicis' states that the Thoracomachus could be used as armour at a pinch. It would provide some light protection against spent missiles and sword/spear cuts but probably useless against thrusts.
It's the kind of thing one can imagine the troops on the march would do, wear something that may give at least minimal protection if they were attacked before they could don their cuirasses.
Quote:Isn't it fascinating how successive artists copy the picture without the slightest understanding of what they're painting?! Nathan's shoulder holster appears to have started life as a piece of shoulder armour. (Or is it vice versa? :dizzy: )
I think the artist may have been confused by the original clavi on the tunic.
Robert Vermaat MODERATOR FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Quote:I think the artist may have been confused by the original clavi on the tunic.
Now that's an interesting thought! A misreading of a vertical clavus across the shoulder would explain the strap-thing around his arm. But why the horizonal strap across his chest that links to it though?...
Caballo post=324660 Wrote:my computer can't turn the pages....
Nor mine!...
I don't know if you have managed to sort this out but, if not, this is a way of dealing with it:
Click on the link and then type 'MS. Canon. Misc. 378' (without the quotes) into the search box at the top right hand side. Click on 'Search' and this will bring up thumbnails of all the illustrations in the Bodleian copy, de Rebus Bellicis and Notitia Dignitatum. You can click on the thumbnails to bring up larger images.
Be warned! I find this an extremely slow and temperamental site. I hope this helps.
Michael King Macdona
And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
