Talk:Léal Souvenir

All Greek to me

I am not a scholar of medieval or Byzantine Greek, but the quoted transcription of the first line of Greek lettering - "TγΜ.ωΟΕΟς" - looks a bit wrong to me.

From the image, it looks to me something like "ΤΥΜ. ωθΕΟΙ" - clearly a capital tau "Τ", then a capital upsilon (sometimes written more like than "Υ"), then a capital mu "Μ " - "ΤΥΜ" - then a dot and (for some reason) what looks like a lower case omega "ω" (but possibly a Cyrillic-type capital omega Ѡ, then a theta of indeterminate case but probably lower case "θ" (closer to a line-within-a-circle, , but with the line extended through, like the plimsoll line symbol or London Underground roundel ), then a capital epsilon "Ε" and a capital omicron "Ο" and finally something that looks like a capital iota "I". The three letters I struggle with most are the omega and theta (capital or not?) and the last latter - looks like an iota, but perhaps this is a variant of a sigma.

This is just observation, but I suppose you could call it OR if you wanted to. What do the sources say?

I have found one source that says "ΤΥΜΩΘΕΟC" (the "Ϲ" is a capital lunate sigma) The National Gallery says "The inscription in Greek letters has been read as 'Tymotheus' (Timothy), but it seems to be a transliteration into Greek script of two words in Latin, 'tum otheos' meaning 'Then God'. What this signifies is not clear."

And there is this from JSTOR (thank you, local library!) - "The Sitter for Jan van Eyck's 'Leal Sovvenir'", Jacques Paviot, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Vol. 58, (1995), pp. 210-215 - which says something that looks like "TYM.WΘEOC". Incidentally, this is an excellent source, summarising the arguments to identify the sitter - Binchois, or a Greek merchant, or Henry the Navigator, or Johannes Kheudsen, Gille de Blackere, Jean de Croy, or a self-portrait? - and adding some other possibilities - a rhetorician from Bruges? a scrivener from Tournai? a member of the compagnie du Chapel vert? - with many other incidental details - for example, the original frame is lost, and the reverse is painted to resemble porphyry; a possibly link to a character in the poem La Belle Dame sans Mercy and similar works. Many of the earier sources assume "Tymotheos". But could it be a rough transliteration of the Latin "Time Deum" ("Fear God")? Or a reference to the 1408 Battle of Othée? Or an abbreviation of "Tymme", short for Thomas?

If it is Timotheos, with a lunate sigma, then the stop, upsilon and omega are wrong - should be an iota and an omicron, although the upsilon could denote a long "i".

Presumably there are other sources? What do they sources say? -- Theramin (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello from 18 months time ;) Paviot is indeed excellent and incorporating now. Tks. Ceoil (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Dhanens

A circular route took me to a sandbox I thought was gone, which I decided to fill a bit, and then realized a few notes were already there. Anyway, might be helpful, from Elisabeth Dhanens. [1]. Victoria (tk) 20:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

thank you. In Florida for few days, editing on a tablet, but looking forward to checking This out. Itrying now to attach a sig....Ceoil (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Dhanens doesn't have much new to add, hasn't much of a clue what the inscription means, so it's all conjecture. Maybe an in-joke on JvE's part? Also checked some sources and found Leal with and without accent used interchangeably. Anyway, enjoy FL! Victoria (tk) 11:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Fl is great, sitting by pool now in some place outside Orlando. My brother is to be married tomorrow, so the whole crew is here. I,m somewhat tickled that van Eyck had problems spelling at times. The Christus article will be a credit on 25dec, all going well. It's a really beautiful painting and page. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the spelling irony isn't lost on me, but imo I think he always wanted to add a puzzle and the parapet is the only place in this painting where he could play. He knew what he meant but 600 years later we're still scratching our heads. I am glad to see that you and Liz have this at FAC - something about Timotheos that's always struck me (like a character from a novel). I made a few bold edits - pls, revert anything that's wrong. I'll swing by the FAC in a few days. Sitting by the pool in FL sounds sinfully relaxing! Victoria (tk) 23:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

it's the Saturday night before Halloween, I had no idea that is a such a major thing in Latin culture. I thought I knew my macabre and had a good sence of the gothic, but no. Drum patterns, face paint, red dresses, not giving a damn. Talk about vibrant and celebratory. And visually gobsmacking. Ceoil (talk) 05:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. I've been to some weddings and Quinceañeras that were visually stunning. Sounds wonderful! Re the article, I've meddled, in this edit. I think that's the problem. Pls revert though if either of you disagree. Busy week ahead so mostly out until the w/e. Victoria (tk) 23:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I've -somewhat indirectly- mentioned Dhanens, but more to work in from your notes and Theramin's links. Campbell seems to be hedging on the side of, as you say, an "in-joke on JvE's part"; a small detail drew so much heat, 582 years later, ha ha. I call very, very sophisticated troll indeed. Grr. Anyways, thanks for talking things down, and again delighted that the Nativity is going so well. Ceoil (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it; most of what she says is now in the article and it's my fault for stuffing in a sandbox forever instead of adding directly to the page. I might add from Dhanens to some of the other JvE pages as I have time. Victoria (tk) 22:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Gilles Binchois

Found something that be useful to clarify the image file. Even has an online link (insanely long!): [2]. Victoria (tk) 13:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Greek interpretation problems

When I checked Wood and Paviot for some weird claims about the Greek translation sourced to them, I'm afraid it failed verification badly - nothing like it in . I'm flagging up the section. Plus, most of the interesting stuff in Paviot about the Greek is left out. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with this edit. What Dhanens writes (the book is sitting next to me right at the is moment) is: "…the motto TIME DEUM (Fear God) was used, for instance by the Vilain family". I suspect that during editing some of the refs got shoved around and lost, but as rewritten it now doesn't say what Dhanens says - or rather it asserts things that she hasn't written. Nor is the point as now written in Paviot, who does quote Dhanens correctly. Huge apologies to Ceoil and Kafka Liz for intruding, btw; jumping in for the moment but will be out for a few days after tonight. Also I think the tagging is unnecessary. Victoria (tk) 01:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the trouble with trying to fix text using one source that talks about a second. Could you kindly fix it and add the Dhanens source? I only have access to Paviot's summary, which seems to have lost some detail (plus, I may have used too much of what was there). Still, think that's closer than it was. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem, will add Dhanens. Can't get to it immediately but hopefully at some point in the next few days. Victoria (tk) 14:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Managed to get it in and in the process shoved around a few points in this edit. Adam, check to see if this makes sense to you, since it's all Greek to me! Victoria (tk) 22:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Jan van Eyck - Léal Souvenir - National Gallery, London.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Jan van Eyck - Léal Souvenir - National Gallery, London.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 4, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-12-04. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Léal Souvenir is a small 1432 oil-on-oak panel portrait by the Early Netherlandish painter Jan van Eyck. This painting commemorates an unidentified man, possibly Timotheus of Miletus, who is considered "plain and rustic" yet also thoughtful and inward-looking. The painting is held at the National Gallery, London.Painting: Jan van Eyck

English

The article has not been tagged for variant of English and currently combines US- and UK- forms of English e.g. "their original colors. ... The panel is discoloured overall". As the painting is in the collection of the National Gallery (UK) and has been in Britain for 150+ years, I would suggest UK English is appropriate. Nedrutland (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

LÉAL vs LEAL

A historical factoid for anyone who's interested: the "lack" of the accent on LEAL in the inscription is actually a holdover from the early days of printing when putting accents on capital letters was such a problem that they were simply omitted. The result was that until recently omitting the accents on capitals was not only acceptable, but even recommended. New technologies have now rendered that custom obsolete, of course. Awien (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Not convinced. This work was completed seven years before Johannes Gutenberg's printing press in 1439, and decades before printing became widespread. Why should a painting of a stone inscription follow the technical limitations of printing? Speculating, but perhaps this reflects contemporary stonemasonry practices? Is there is discussion of the point in the sources on French orthography? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.179 (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Oops! Not paying sufficient attention to the date. Awien (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Panofsky

"Panofsky notes that many of the errors in the work appear in Byzantine script, which most likely was his source, while in instances there are no definitive formations of characters for some of the constructs he appears to be use." What on earth does this mean? Can't find the article on JSTOR. I have spent a lot of time tweaking this article - the prose and organisation, etc, were of surprisingly low quality for a TFA queue article. NPalgan2 (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the tag, which I think is unnecessary when there's only a single sentence at issue. I read the sentence as meaning that there are instances (of characters in the three horizontal rows of lettering) which are not examples of any definitive form of a Byzantine script character, or of any other script. I agree the sentence could be improved. If there's doubt about the meaning perhaps we should wait to confirm with Ceoil or Kafka Liz, who nominated the article for FA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The creators typically don't edit during the week, so email would be better for an article scheduled two days from now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Done; thanks for letting me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Mike is correct in his interpretation. 195.7.32.142 (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I asked the other coordinators for their opinions since I thought the tag was unnecessary too, thanks to Mike. I assume that the isp is one of the noms not logged in? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm neither Ceoil nor Kafka Liz, was not a nominator, but did do some work on this article, reviewed it, and do have access to sources (but not to Panofsky). As the IP says, Mike is right, in his interpretation. There are long discussions here and on the FAC page regarding the lettering and it is what it is. Scholars have spilt a lot of ink trying to figure it out; we won't be able to give a definitive answer if we follow sources. I saw the tag being added, didn't agree with it either, took a look at a few sources and can't make it better. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding: because that sentence precedes a very long section about what the lettering might mean, I've simply moved it to the end of the section to clarify, [3]. It might make more sense there. If anyone disagrees, happy to see it reverted. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Have taken out the sentence, its not key. Thanks for the copyedits etc Ceoil (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Infobox?

Wouldn't this article benefit from the use of Template:Infobox artwork? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Nah, it's all good. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Head/body proportions - is there a contradiction?

Hello. Forgive me if I am confused but at the moment we have in the Description section's second paragraph this: The man's torso is undersized compared to his head [...] design errors and then in the first paragraph of the Description/Portrait subsection we say: Typically for van Eyck, the head is large in relation to the torso. So we seem to jump from saying it's a design error to saying it's typical of him. Now, unless the idea is that all/the typical mass of his work has design errors (in which case we maybe need to say this more clearly?!), there seems to be a bit of a contradiction here. Or is it just me? Cheers DBaK (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

We don't know - van Eyck's paintings are nothing if not enigmatic, and there is no record of his intentions. An undersized torso and a large head can be seen in other of his paintings. Differing art historians seek differing ways to explain. I agree its confusing; frankly I don't buy design error. Ceoil (talk)

The key here is "Some art historians *speculate*". Its a good spot though, any suggestions? Ceoil (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the nice reply. I should be honest and admit that what I am doing here is that typical Bl**dy Annoying Wikipedia Editor thing of pointing out a problem without having much clue about how to fix it! Sorry. It's not my field at all, even if I were any good at this sort of thing, and my bookshelves are not exactly groaning under the weight of Campbell, Pächt and Kemperdick. What I would say is that, if the references permitted it and it didn't sound too OR-ish, it would be good if the two statements were to somehow acknowledge each other's presence. That is, something like "although some art historians speculate that foo, this is seen by others as typical of bar". An ting, as they say. I know this might be pie in the sky in terms of what is available to cite, but I did wonder if something like that might help. On the other hand. this is pretty trivial and does not really have much influence on the price of fish; I am not planning to start a fist fight over it! So I will just shush now, see what transpires, and be wholly unoffended if it's left unfixed. Cheers! DBaK (talk) 08:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Its always worth challenging editors, DBaK, unfortunately I have no answer for you, except to say will emphasis the uncertainty in the literature more. Ceoil (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Tightened phrasing somewhat per above DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered. Please take a look. Ceoil (talk) 09:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

It's very good, thank you. I like the new wording. To be honest, I am still not quite sure that it meets my query but I do appreciate your kind efforts to address it. I think I should maybe leave it a bit and reassess my view some other time - maybe I'm just wrong! Cheers DBaK (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

If its unclear still, then your not wrong. Will take another look. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Just to be sure I'm being clear, what is bothering me is that one moment we say:

The parapet dominates the portrait, and his head seems oversized compared to his upper body. Some art historians speculate that this is a result of van Eyck's then inexperience; it was only his second known portrait.

and then a few lines down we go:

Typically for van Eyck, the head is large in relation to the torso.

and I just can't see how these two ideas can peacefully co-exist. If it's because he's inexperienced then how is it typical of his work ... he couldn't stay inexperienced? It just doesn't seem quite to work. It can be an early or one-off thing (upper version) or a typical thing he does all the time (lower version) - but not both, surely?

Sorry to rabbit on so much, Cheers. DBaK (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)