Talk:Freydal/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 02:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

It is the most extensive visual record of late medieval tournaments and court masquerades that exists. — Is the part about this being the most extensive record of medieval tournaments anywhere in the body? I do see the part about it being the most extensive record of masquerades.

It’s based on this sentence in the ‘Illuminated Manuscript Tournament Book’ section: “Other tournament books exist, but Freydal is the largest from the late Middle Ages[5] and is considered the best executed; it is also the only one to show spectacular falls.[9]” DeCausa (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Creation and history

Maximilian appears to have begun planning Freydal (a name derived from Freyd-alb, meaning "white joyful young man") in 1502 — This sentence could probably be split in two: one about the date, one about the name.

Done. DeCausa (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could "mummeries" be linked to mummers' play?

No, I don’t believe so. I had looked at this - while there’s clearly an etymological and to some extant a substantive connection they are different things. In fact, we lack an article on this - had thought about doing one. Masque and Masquerade ball skirt near it but neither are exactly this. DeCausa (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is "laid paper"?

Hand-made ribbed paper - I’ve added a wikilink to the article on it. DeCausa (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The remaining painting has been missing since at least 1600. — Any further details?

No, I don’t think anything more is known about what happened to it. DeCausa (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A sixth woodcut has been attributed to Lucas Cranach the Elder. — So were there five woodcuts, or six?

The way I read the sources is that 5 is the generally accepted number i.e. confirmed. There is this one source that refers to this 6th one and uses the phrase “has been attributed to” Cranach. I take it to mean it’s not definite like the others. DeCausa (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, that makes sense. This appears as if it may be the source of the attribution. Perhaps it is worth saying "at least five of the illustrations were trial printed", which makes the discussion of the sixth less unexpected. It's odd, though; even Dodgson later (in 1926) discusses only the Dürer woodblocks.

Content

Each is hosted by one of the finest courts in the land and comprises two different types of jousting; a foot combat; and a masquerade ball — I edited this sentence to make clear (as it seemed to me) that the "two different types" means two types of jousting, in addition to a foot combat, not one type of jousting and one foot combat. Just want to confirm that this is correct as now worded.

Yes, that’s correct. Thanks for the edit. DeCausa (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminated manuscript tournament book

Could this be retitled "Illustrations", or is the longer title necessary to distinguish from the sketches etc.?

Illuminated manuscript has a specific meaning and does distinguish it from the sketches. I would prefer to keep it. DeCausa (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a set number of illustrations for each of the 64 tournaments (it seems like there might be exactly four each)?

I couldn’t find a source that explicitly says that but I agree you’d think it would be 4 each. I didn’t want to put that in without an explicit source for fear of WP:OR! DeCausa (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilian claimed to have invented this type of joust. — Claimed in this work, or at some other point?

I assume claimed elsewhere as the source doesn’t say Freydal claimed it. But it’s not explicit in the source where he claimed it. DeCausa (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From my count, seven of the eleven sub-types of jousts are discussed. Is there a reason the other four aren't mentioned, even in a footnote?

Only that there the only ones I could find named. I’ve based that part mainly on Terjanian (2019) and for some reason there are the only ones named there. The new Krause reproduction of the tournament book probably has them named - but that’s not available online yet (and I wasn’t going to spend £150 buying it!) DeCausa (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

DeCausa, this is a really interesting, and well done, article. The one thing I was surprised to not see was a section on more modern analysis of Freydal; the article covers what it is, what is shows, and what it says, but other than a few snippets here and there (e.g., "The Freydal illustrations constitute the most extensive pictorial record of these late medieval court masquerades"), it omits any scholarly analysis of the work. Surely some of the more recent sources include some of this? --Usernameunique (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique:, thanks very much - and thanks for your work on this. I’ve responded on the specific points above - let me know if anything further is needed on them. With regard to your last general point, I’ll have a look around and see what I can find. It might take me a couple of days. DeCausa (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, DeCausa. I've added one response, and one additional thought, above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: I’ve created a short ‘Significance’ section which hopefully addresses this a little more. To be honest, it’s quite difficult to find much more on this other than variations of ‘the most extensive record of jousting’. I suspect it’s only attracted much modern scholarly attention in the last decade - so modern commentary is relatively limited. Which would, in itself, be a point - but I can’t find a source saying that! Let me know what you think. DeCausa (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usernameunique, I’ve now added some political significance to that section as well. DeCausa (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DeCausa, that looks great. Passing this now. It would be interesting to see this article at FAC sometime, although that would probably take finding the new Krause book—and given that most libraries aren't lending at the moment, that may take some months. It strikes me that there are some areas in which further depth would take this article the extra mile. One area is the 11 types of jousts, commented upon above. Another would be to list each of the 255/6 illustrations, with descriptions; Ceilings of the Natural History Museum, London is perhaps worth looking at in that regard, although a companion article (e.g., "List of illustrations from Freidall") could also work. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: thanks and agree with your comments. Thanks for all your work and diligence on this! DeCausa (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]