Talk:Divine Comedy Illustrated by Botticelli

Numbers
85 in Berlin + 8 in Rome = 93, but everyone is agreed 92 is the total. How? Johnbod (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * There was a blank one. I think they don't count it in the 92. In any case, there were supposed to be 102 drawings. I'm not sure what happened to the remaining 10. Dr.   K.  04:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

1491 printed edition
The section on this seems confused; this was a printed edition with engravings as illustration. Here's one. Johnbod (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It's actually the 1481 edition. I don't see where the confusion lies. The reference to the 1481 edition is about Baccio Baldini being dependent on Botticelli's designs. Botticelli's manuscript is a different edition from the mid-1480s. Dr.   K.  04:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Botticelli's manuscript isn't an "edition" at all; nor is the 1481 a "manuscript", as the article calls it. You are pretty clearly getting confused between two very different types of work, and, I suspect, other things. Certainly, I found it totally confusing to read. Re your reversion, you need to spell out how the text and images present themselves; really there should be mention of the text in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from personal attacks. There is no confusion on my part, although there may be on yours. First, there is no 1491 edition, as you wrote in the section title. Baldini's edition is from 1481. Also your comment: nor is the 1481 a "manuscript", as the article calls it. No, the article does not call the 1481 copy a manuscript. This is false. Your comment: You are pretty clearly getting confused between two very different types of work, and, I suspect, other things. is invalid, not to mention personal. I did not get anywhere near a confused state. I simply used the reference of Barbara Watts, page 163 to be exact, where she connects these two works to Botticelli. If you think Barbara Watts is confused, that's another matter. Quote from Barbara Watts:
 * The main idea here is that Baldini's work was based on Botticelli's designs. That Baldini's edition was not a manuscript does not matter. What matters is that from Baldini's edition, one can discern how the missing drawings of Botticelli might have looked like. Dr.   K.  05:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Re your reversion, you need to spell out how the text and images present themselves; really there should be mention of the text in the lead. I already have. Quote from the article, based on Barbara Watts:
 * You edit was based on Lippmann's source which said that the text "faced" the drawings, i.e. a horizontal arrangement. I think Watts's vertical arrangement theory is more plausible and in any case Watts is a more modern scholar. Dr.   K.  06:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Quote from Barbara Watts page 198:
 * In addition to these differences between Watts and Lippmann, Watts mentions four columns of text per canto, whereas Lippmann mentions six. Dr.   K.  06:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't work through all this, or looked at Watt, but what she says re the arrangement seems exactly the same as Lippmann. Why you think "facing" implies a particular orientation of the pages I can't imagine. But something needs to be said about the arrangement of the pages. Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To "face" is a vague term. But the first definition of "face" is "to be opposite somebody/something; to have your face or front pointing towards somebody/something" So it stands to reason that the first meaning of the word would imply that the two pages are in opposite sides of the bound volume, i.e. left and right, as opposed to up and down. Aside from semantics, Watts is explicit about the two possible orientations of the drawings versus text, horizontal versus vertical, whereas Lippmann is not so clear. So I think we should go with Watts's description.  Dr.   K.  18:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As I keep saying, you're not going with any description, just omitting mention of the arrangement and text altogether. By all means do it in your own words, but it needs to be there. And why does it stand to reason that "opposite sides of the bound volume, i.e. left and right, as opposed to up and down." Wierd. Do two pages stop facing each other if you turn the book sideways?  You are wrong if you think there is any difference between Lippmann and West on this.   Johnbod (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Do two pages stop facing each other if you turn the book sideways? Wrong. If the pages are stacked for vertical reading, orienting them sideways defeats the purpose, because you cannot read vertically-arranged pages sideways. The idea here is that upon opening the volume, the text-illustration pair should be in the reading position. In addition, Watts explains that the traditional binding method was the horizontal arrangement in which the parchment of text would be separate from the parchment of the illustration, but she rejects that specifically because the size of the manuscript in this case would be 32 by 94, instead of 64 by 47; this explanation is in the article already. Lippmann never makes that analysis or distinction and I don't think Lippmann thought of the vertical arrangement as Watts proposed, otherwise he would have mentioned it explicitly as Barbara Watts does. It is very probable that Lippmann proposes the horizontal arrangement because that was the most often used at the time. You have not understood the horizontal and vertical arrangements and the effect on the dimensions of the bound volume depending on which binding one chooses. But I am not here to give you tutorials or bicker ad infinitum with you and your PAs, obscure wording, and confused ideas. You may think that you are clear in what you are saying but you are not. Can you propose a wording you want to put in the article so that I can understand what you are on about? Dr.   K.  07:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, what you've added will do. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have restored your edit about the location of the text. Your description works for the vertical arrangement, if the text is reversed with repect to the drawing of the same page, which it is. Dr.   K.  23:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Post-war
You don't get it. The Berlin Museums were split during the Cold War, with objects in different countries depending on where they happened to be when the Russians arrived. Although both sides recognised in some sense the unity of the collections, in practice there were two museums, DDR and FDR. They never left "the museum". Johnbod (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Look, if you have to be rude, despite my civilised warnings you can talk to yourself. I saw from the Daily Telegraph, the following statement: After the Second World War, when Berlin was divided, half of them were kept in a gallery in the east of the city and half in the west and they were only reunited after the Wall came down.. This in no way verifies what you say: The Berlin Museums were split during the Cold War, with objects in different countries depending on where they happened to be when the Russians arrived. The Daily Telegraph does not mention that the two galleries belonged to the same museum. It could have been that the two galleries were located in different sectors of Berlin. Dr.   K.  18:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, they were. That's the point. What you quote hardly bears out what you are saying, or contradicts me. Johnbod (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Quote from your original post: They never left "the museum". Quote from the Daily Telegraph: After the Second World War, when Berlin was divided, half of them were kept in a gallery in the east of the city and half in the west and they were only reunited after the Wall came down. The Daily Telegraph never mentions that the two galleries belonged to the same museum. You may think that the two galleries belonged to the same museum but you have not offered any reliable sources to support what you think. Dr.   K.  07:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You never had any sources for your assertion that they had left "the museum"! Personally I don't think the whole post-war point is worth mentioning, especially in the lead. The situation of the Berlin museums post-war is described by their owning body here. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I see your point about them having left the museum. Ok, I'll remove it from the lead. Dr.   K.  23:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)