Jump to content

Talk:Medieval garden

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Draft

[edit]

Ok, I've done headers and links. Can you put the references into the text? Stick them in the middle of "<ref>here</ref>". There's a key to add the ref ref bit at the bottom of the editing screen, you will find. I've added an example to the first sentence. It's fine to repeat them. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks - I've asked for it to be moved to be an article. Johnbod (talk) 04:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
just to say, really impressive work by 1948dlj and Johnbod. So great to to see a seeming expert creating an article in the restrictive wiki style, in a manner that can be held up as one of our best. It renews my faith in the possibility of high quality new articles here, and hope it is headed towards dyk. Ceoil (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ceoil! Johnbod (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My only exposure to this area was describing the gardens in the Met Cloisters which needs work; really impressed you guided 1948dlj into such a fascinating article. 00:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from New Page Review process

[edit]

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Excellent article imho - really interesting and written and illustrated to a high quality. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 14:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Gardening angels, c. 1510
Gardening angels, c. 1510
  • Landsberg, Sylvia, The Medieval Garden, British Museum Press, ISBN 9780714120805, p. 7; ...manuscript illustrations are invaluable ... [and] are to be thought of ...as vivid documentary evidence"
Created by 1948dlj (talk) and Johnbod (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 241 past nominations.

Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Looks great. All set. Thriley (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article locked?

[edit]

Why is the article locked? Why can't an image be added that can be used for the main page to swap out the image of the woman harvesting sage. Any other of the images in the article would work. Or File:Prayer book of Maria d'Harcourt - Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin MsGermQuart42 - f19v.jpg would work. Victoria (tk) 23:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee? Victoria (tk) 23:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, @Victoriaearle. Locked it because it became unstable while on the Main Page. If you think there's a better image, discussion is at WP:ERRORS. Valereee (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I posted there. But I really don't understand. You're an admin. Why not swap the image instead of locking the article? File:Meister des Frankfurter Paradiesgärtleins 001.jpg is in the article, supports the hook, and is lovely. Victoria (tk) 23:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus to remove image?

[edit]

@Ceoil: has claimed that there is a consensus to remove this image from the article[1] but I am unable to locate this consensus, can anyone help? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not Ceoil, but the page is on my watchlist & I tried to edit earlier. It's up to Johnbod, but any of the images from Hortus conclusus would work, or maybe File:Master of Flkmalle Madonna and Child with Saints in the Enclosed Garden.jpg, or the one I mentioned in the thread above. The image of the woman gathering sage is the weakest in the article and that it was used for the DYK is when Wikipedia so many other truly beautiful images really does a disservice to the readers and to the people who worked to make this article what it is. We should probably cut that one. Victoria (tk) 03:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes it weak? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are pictures of recreated medieval gardens at the The Cloisters. The image in question doesn't show a garden & can be replaced if Johnbod wants to because there are so many others of better quality to choose from. Victoria (tk) 13:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly Victoria, the images are of shrubbery rather than gardens. Horse Eye's Back I don't understand why you are picking a hill to die on here; you are the person suggesting the change, was reverted twice; regardless that Vaaarerie or whatever locked the page on the wrong version. IMO, rather than we explain again why it is weak, it is incumbent on you, as the belligerent, to rationalise its inclusion. Ceoil (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't know how to reword weak. The hook mentioned miniatures (from illuminated manuscripts) and in that respect that image is the weakest. Plus it doesn't show a garden. Victoria (tk) 14:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither but its all kind of moot now. Ceoil (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is moot now? We aren't discussing the DYK. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image is 100% a minature from an illuminated manuscript which depicts a garden, how can it be weak in that respect? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable sources say that the image in question shows a garden, do you have a reliable source which says that it doesnt? Note that gardens at the Cloisters are a representational monastic garden... Which is apparently exlcuded from the topic area of this aricle. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, what is your point/reason now? Fighting (!!) to get an image back into an article that you didn't even introduce...because you are right about, eh...there you loose me. Ceoil (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was the strongest image in the article, at least from a horticultural and historical perspective. It seems like the rest of you are approaching this from an art angle and not a garden angle unless I am mistaken. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. Ceoil (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What sources?? The quantity of sage being grown suggests it shows an essentially commercial operation, which is in line with the book to which it was a (later) illustration. Johnbod (talk) 01:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the pre-industrial era the commercial production of sage and other herbs was carried out in the garden in areas in which those herbs would not readily naturalize. Note that sage was regarded as both a food and a medicine in that time period. I would also note that it was one of the few or only southern european depictions of a garden, there isn't a great deal of diversity in those images for a topic that is supposed to cover all of Europe. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even in the MA we can mostly distinguish between commercial market gardening and pleasure gardens, & the TS illustrations seem mostly to show the former, and farming, not really the subject here. In the MA realism was a northern speciality, & there are indeed few miniatures from south of the Alps. Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you're saying that this is only a page for pleasure gardens? It is not currently constructed as such and most sources seem to contend that the line between recreational garden and commercial garden was not yet well deliniated (the current lead "Medieval gardens in Europe were widespread, but our very incomplete knowledge of them is better for those of elites than the common people, who probably mostly grew for food and medicine." would seem to very clearly include market gardening and other forms of non-elite gardens). I also don't see any sources which say that in the Middle Ages we can mostly distinguish between commercial market gardening and pleasure gardens. I would also note that for a scene supposedly depicting an agricultural and not a medical pursuit the woman shown harvesting the sage is dressed awfully nicely. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what sources are you seeing exactly? Most gardens included food & medical crops for household use, often taking a lot of the space, which might cover large numbers of people in elite establishments, and some crops might be sold or given as presents at peak harvest times, but there was also a sector growing some crops (especially perhaps medical and fruit) on a scale intended very largely for commercial sale. Monasteries were sometimes involved in this, but there's little evidence afaik for secular elites doing it. I'm distinguishing such crops from normal farm crops, including wine etc. The woman's dress seems fairly basic to me - the clothing in all those illustrations is pretty erratic, and they are variations on an unknown original illustrating a much older Arabic medical text. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A full length single fabric red dress in the middle ages seems basic to you? I doesn't to me but I guess we will have to disagree. What else suggests to you that the image depicts cultivation "on a scale intended very largely for commercial sale"? That is exactly the scale you would expect of "for or medical crops for household use, often taking a lot of the space, which might cover large numbers of people in elite establishments, and some crops might be sold or given as presents at peak harvest times" not commercial quantities, its not actually that much sage (I grow several varieties of sage in my gardens, one of the beds is larger than the one depicted although quite similar and my sage basket looks almost exactly like hers... For truly agricultural sage harvest you would use a wagon or wheelbarrow). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She's wearing very similar clothing to other women in the same MS clearly doing peasant or menial things such as harvesting wheat, threshing, carrying water etc. Anway, it's a very low quality reproduction of a rather ugly image. Thanks for the OR anyway. What on earth do you do with all the sage? Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tacuin Rue35
I don't find it ugly, maybe its just a matter of taste? As for my gardens honestly your description is on point... primarily household use.... takes up a lot of space... covers a (relatively for time period) large number of people... and some crop is sold or given as presents at peak harvest times. A lot gets dried, ground up, and returned to beds as a natural pest repellent (also smells great). In those times households consumed a lot more sage because they also used it inside as a Strewing herb (bugs don't like it, especially when it gets crushed up). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there are other images which better fit what you guys are expecting of a depiction of a garden like this one? If realism is actually the point I don't see why this is worse than a fantasy scene with angels. Also to be clear actual farmers didn't read the Tacuinum sanitatis in the middle, it was for elite consuption and it was the most popular gardening book of its day. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was only incidentally a "gardening book". Your image isn't a "fantasy scene"?? Again, the image quality is very low indeed. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware of a true gardening book which was popular in middle ages Europe? Incidental or not that was the main gardening book. My image appears to be idealized not fantasized. Everything is real even if proportions have been exaggerated. Its more than good enough to serve as a thumbnail. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strange distinctions. No "books" really, other than Crescenzi, but texts that are more to the point, such as the Menagier de Paris and John the Gardener, neither exactly popular I think. Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately we don't seem to have a lot of illustrations from the right time period for those... Can you look through the various Tacuinum sanitatism versions from the right period and let me know if there are any you think are appropriate? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the illustrations we have are relatively close to these late sources - more than to the TS from 11th-century Iraq. I'd already looked through the TS images, which are essentially illustrating the plants, with the figures rather erratic and symbolic staffage in many cases. Plus the Commons image quality is uniformly low. If we could assemble modern photos of "authentic" plants in the form thay had at the period, that might make a better mini-gallery. I do plan to add more images. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the illustrations we currently have actually seem too late, both the Hours of Joanna of Castile and Spinola Hours are most likely from after 1500 so their relation to the Medieval garden would have to be directly established by a source. It seems that coverage of TS is due in the article, in which case we would be using it to illustrate the contents of the primary gardening book of the period. Would that work for you. (unsigned, by HEB))
The lateness of many images is addressed in the text, and reflects those used in RS. Ones that show "Renaissance" features have been avoided, but (as the text says) Renaissance gardening styles were slow to kick in, especially in the north, even in royal contexts. The best illustrations around 1500 show the same things as those over the previous say 150 years, but with much better detail. What sources do you have for TS being "the primary gardening book of the period"? This is just nonsense! Have you ever looked at the text? A good slice is previewable online to me anyway. It is a "medical text" (Leslie, 157) with absolutely no information at all on cultivation in the entries I've seen. The author was a doctor, who essentially gives a 2nd-hand re-hash of Dioscurides. It consists of infobox-style entries on things to do with health, including plants, for which terse and rather banal information is given on how to choose them, presumably in a large market in Constantinople or Baghdad. For cabbage (caules), you want "the fresh and fleshy ones", & for dill (aneti) "the kind that is green, fresh and tender". That's it. The Leslie book mentions it twice, but neither Landsberg, Hobhouse nor the Jellicoes' long account of medieval "gardening books" (364-365, entry by Howard Tanner) mention it at all (Hobhouse's index has 15 entries for Dioscurides). Tanner/the Jellicoes mention lots of other texts, but these are mostly essentially lists of plants, which was the basic form of medieval text. I don't want to get more into those for our readership - Harvey and Hobhouse have lots on that. Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see Hobhouse says (p 25) "it was the agricultural writers of imperial Rome who provided most of the details of husbandry and garden lore known to western man during the Middle Ages: the works of [Cato, Varro, Columella, Paladius] were constantly referred to". I should work that in. She also stresses the pre-eminence of Dioscurides as a source and reference throughout and well beyond the MA. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TA is largely a re-work of Dioscurides, there is no contradiction there. Here is an internet available article[2] which clearly discusses medieval gardens in the context of TA "These documents connect vegetables and fruits as well as the garden itself with human health" "These six copies provide a rich source of information on agriculture and horticulture of the late medieval period containing vivid images of plants being harvested in fields and gardens." "The onions are neatly planted in rows in a garden that also contains two trees" "The garden scenes resemble traditional horticulture practiced today in many parts of the world. Vegetables are shown harvested in gardens and fields from dense plantings, whereas fruit trees are pictured alone, suggesting that large orchards were uncommon." "The medieval idea that the garden was a place for healing, relaxing, and physical and mental well-being was a premonition of modern horticultural therapy." with links to a number of other sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pier de Crescenzi, Livre des prouffitz champestres et ruraulx
Same Ms, planting trees
Interesting if rather thin piece, which should be put at TS somehow, since unlike most garden history stuff it is free online. I think they are right to suggest that the clothing of the figures relates more to the class of the eaters of particular plants than their growers, which goes a little way to explain the "erratic" clothing styles I mentioned above. One might imagine a modern version, with figures in tuxedos and long evening dresses collecting say asparagus. But that would not be an ideal illustration for gardening. But their contention that the fact that only single trees are shown shows that "large" orchards were uncommon seems very wide of the mark - like the mountainous fields of melons and so forth this just reflects the consistent compositional schema the images adopt, with foreground figures of a fairly consistent size in the lower part of the image, and the plant material occupying most of the upper part. There is a similar group of 15th-century illustrations to Crescenzi, variations on the same original compositions, which would lead to the opposite conclusion. These have a more distant viewpoint, and like to have a large house on the left, with orchards/woods/vineyards one might call "large" sweeping almost up to it. In these it is clear who everyone is, and where they are - the long-robed author explains things to his richly-dressed pupil, and the workers more or less look like workers. The scenes, or at least the placement of house and plants together, are just as artificial as the TS illustrations, but much more rich in details. How do your authors distinguish between "fields and garden"? They can't. Apart from the strange cliff-edge feature at the front of the picture space, there are very few details of the setting beyond the figures and the plants to give a landscape context. One or two show the crop in a fenced enclosure, which might indicate a garden, or just that they need to be protected from deer, boars etc. In fact, I see that although Penelope Hobhouse does not mention TS in her text, she illustrates some of the Italian miniatures (pp 86-87), noting in a caption that "Many of the herbs, such as sage and rue, were grown as crops" - presumably meaning in a farm rather than garden setting. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about the context but in general horticultural terms "Many of the herbs, such as sage and rue, were grown as crops" would mean that the herbs were grown for use not as in-situ ornamentation but would not be making the farm vs garden distinction. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Her meaning is a little unclear, but that's not how it seems in context. She's just said "Plants depicted ... all have useful medicinal properties or fragrance". Johnbod (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That to me seems to be suggesting a use other than in-situ ornamentation not a farm vs garden distinction. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Medieval_garden&oldid=1234503783"