Talk:Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry

Folio numbering
In a recent edit, User:Wetman commented it's not a folio. This may be so, but it probably requires further explanation, as most sources (including the image collection on the Commons) seem to refer to the images in relation to their folio. -- Solipsist 19:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure what wetman means by "its not a folio". He could mean that the the book is not of the size commonly known as folio, which is true. However, so far as no, the boook is foliated, not paginated, that is the each individual leaf is counted rather than each side of a leaf as is done in modern books. Since every reference to the book I have ever seen indicates the folio a miniature is on (assuming that the reference is actually explicit on the issue), rather than the page, the article should give the total number of folios rather than the total number of pages. I don't know the number, but I will endevor to find out. Dsmdgold 21:57, May 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * When you've got it nailed down, it sure would make a good short paragraph in the entry, with a folio linkage, for unilluminated folks like me! --Wetman 22:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I have upload this image collection on the Commons. Images are in relation to their folio. I didn't not upload the all folio and the completes pages, only the miniatures. If you need more, i can upload the complete book, and the complete folios. Best regards. Petrusbarbygere 13:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Good for you! Mindman1 00:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

About the name of this page
See suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (manuscript names) - shouldn't this be: Les très riches heures du Duc de Berry? --Francis Schonken 22:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Blanked-out writing?
On the pages for January, April, May, and August, all the writing (not the pictures) is blanked out. Why is this? ZtObOr 16:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC) edit: wow, first comment on this page in 3 years. Exactly 3 years, at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ztobor (talk • contribs) 20:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

March 2012
Note that in March 2012 an undergraduate on the rogue educational project that annually hits articles on medieval art completely replaced the existing article with what is still mostly the current version, which is much longer. Ideally the two need to be merged. Johnbod (talk) 12:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Previous version - 3 March 2012

Title
I came to this article from reading two English-language architectural history books, one from an English publisher and the other, American: Ayers refer to the work described here as "the Duc de Berry's Très Riches Heures", while Hanser gives "the Très Riches Heures of the Duc de Berry", i.e., they both italicize the simpler title and refer to the book's patron with his French name, but in an English construction. I've since looked at The Dictionary of Art, and that source gives its article the simple title Très Riches Heures, not italicizing it, but italicizing the titles of the individual works from it. Preferring the approach of Ayers and Hanser regarding italics, I changed the Wikipedia article accordingly. Since there is no other article on Wikipedia with the title Très Riches Heures, I felt it should also be moved to the simpler title (over the redirect). --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ayers, Andrew (2004). The Architecture of Paris. Stuttgart; London: Edition Axel Menges. ISBN 9783930698967.
 * Hanser, David A. (2006). Architecture of France. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. ISBN 9780313319020.
 * Well, DON'T do out of process things like this, which can't be reverted. I've had to ask an admin to change it back. You looked at ONE extra source! This is a name for an object, not a title for a work, so should not be italicized. See WP:VAMOS; your architectural authors are evidently ignorant of these things. Très Riches Heures is pretty meaningless by itself, and is used as a name only to distinguish this book from the Riches Heures, the Petit Heures, the Grand Heures etc, all of Berri's.  Next time you have a bright idea, follow the process at WP:RM. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are objecting too. The rename, or the italics, or both? Aren't works of art objects? Your argument doesn't make sense to me. Maybe you should cite a reliable source that says the name should not be italicized, or show that only a minority of sources use italics, that most do not. And your calling Ayers and Hanser ignorant is not a valid argument. It's just name-calling, a poor substitute for an argument. Regarding the short name, it is used by all three sources I cited, even the one which does not italicize Très Riches Heures. --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Another example of the use of italics: The 1991 Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 2, p. 370, writes "the Très Riches Heures of the Duc de Berry was created in northern France". Update: vol. 7, p. 360 (the article on the Limburg brothers), writes "The Très Riches Heures du duc de Berry (Musée Condé, Chantilly), considered their greatest work" and later in the paragraph "The Très Riches Heures was left unfinished in 1416". OK, I'm not saying the longer name is not used, but the short name is common and unambiguous, so it is no problem for us to use it, plus italics are very commonly used. --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * More regarding the name: This work was not given a title by its authors. According to the Dictionary of Art: "Delisle (1884) identified the manuscript ... with a description in an inventory made after the death of the Duc in 1416 [mentioned in the Wikipedia article]: 'several gatherings of a very rich Book of Hours, richly historiated and illuminated that Pol and his brothers made'. This attribution has received general acceptance and has provided the manuscript with its name [Très Riches Heures]." As stated above, The Dictionary of Art does not italicize the name, but omits "du duc de Berry" from the title. --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Johnbod complains that I cited ONE extra source, but I actually cited two for italics and three for the short name. Now I have shown that The Dictionary of Art uses the short name, and gives the reason why; and added another source for italics. Johnbod has cited exactly NONE. So why has an admin changed it back? --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose the argument will be that the writer of the article in The Dictionary of Art is ignorant. --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I also have noticed that 5 of the 7 sources listed here use the short name, Très Riches Heures, in their titles. So why the insistence on the long name? One of the sources with the long name is the Christus Rex, Inc. website. Is this a scholarly source? --Robert.Allen (talk) 06:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. How do you work out that "5 of the 7 sources listed here use the short name" - I see the reverse. The museum itself uses the long name. Try an Amazon or google books search on the short name - most (but not all) results turn out to use a version of the long name. Many or most will use the short name at subsequent mentions, which is fine, but we are talking about the article title here. Johnbod (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If one actually checks the sources cited in the References section, one finds that Bober, Camille, Longnon, Manion (1995), and Manion (1996) all use the short name. For instance, Harry Bober's first sentence is this: "The exquisitely illuminated Très riches Heures of the Duke of Berry, left incomplete by the brothers Limbourg at the death of the Duke in 1416, contains an intriguing miniature showing two figures standing back to back at the centre of a zodiacal mandorla (PI. I)." Michael Camille's first sentence reads: "The 'world's most famous illuminated manuscript,' the Très Riches Heures (Chantilly, Musée Condé, ms 65), begun for the duc de Berry by the Limbourg brothers, left incomplete at the death of both artists and patron in 1416, and finished only later in the century by Jean Colombe, has not lost but rather gained 'aura' in the age of its mechanical reproducibility." If you look at the enlarged image of the cover of the Longnon reprint of 1969, it reads: "The Très Riches Heures of Jean, Duke of Berry" . Margaret Manion 1995 writes in her first sentence: "The Très Riches Heures, Chantilly, Musée Condé, MS. 65, the most famous of the prayer books of Jean, Duc de Berry, has a distinctive series of illustrations for the psalms which has, to date, attracted little attention from art historians." Margaret Manion's article on the book in The Dictionary of Art only uses "Très Riches Heures". (It is the only one of these five sources, that does not italicize the title.) The museum website (you don't provide a link) is in French isn't it? We normally use English sources to determine the title that should be used for the English Wikipedia article. When written in French it is not clear whether the short or long title is being used, unless it is italicized (or put in quotes). --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I was surprised to see the move without a move request but will just mention that the sources I have at hand tend to use the full title on first occurrence. I have this book at hand and will have a look there, and in other sources. Most of the sources mentioned above are tertiary sources, and though OK to use, we tend to try to stick with secondary sources. Victoria (tk) 16:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the italics, it seems like the medievalist community prefers not to use them, but the broader community of scholars, including architectural historians, may not have totally accepted this practice. The current French page italicizes the title. Regarding the name, could you give some speific citations for the sources you find? And thanks for this link. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The first two sources I checked in my files shows the full name. This book on page 2 has our [current] title (I have the book, might not be visible on g-books), as does, (Harbison, Craig. "Visions and Meditations in Early Flemish". Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art, Volume 15, No. 2, (1985), page 91). I could keep checking but have read enough about this that I'm fairly certain I'll continue find our current title. Victoria (tk) 22:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I checked Craig Harbison's article that you cited. He only mentions Très Riches Heures once that I can find. On p. 91 he reproduces one of the illuminated pages. The caption to his figure reads: "3 Limbourg Brothers, Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl. Chantilly, Musée Condé, Très Riches Heures of Jean de Berry, fol. 22. So, wouldn't we have to agree that he uses the short title and italicizes it? --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you call some sources tertiary? The writers of the anonymous articles in the Britanicca may actually be experts in the field using primary sources, although I suppose it may have been the editors who insisted on the italics. In the current references section Bober, Camille, and Manion (1995) look to me like primary sources, and they all use the short version, two with constructions like "Tres Riches Heures of the Duke of Berry", which seem to avoid the long version. Longon and Cazelles 1969 book also cites the patron using English rather than French, so surely they do not intend this as part of the work title. Update: Also, I note that the Dückers and Roelofs book uses italics for the titles. --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Now let's discuss Husband's book. The writer of the Director's Forward is not the author, it is Philippe de Montebello (not generally thought of as a medievalist). His is the first mention of the Belles Heures in Husband's book, and he uses the long title Belles Heures of Jean de Berry, a hybrid of French and English. The author of the book, Timothy B. Husband, is the Curator, Department of Medieval Art and The Cloisters, The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Husband first uses the title in the Acknowledgments section, where he says "In 1972 the overly tight seventeenth-century binding of the Belles Heures was removed...". The first sentence in his Preface reads "This volume is the culmination of a career-long fascination with the manuscript known by its medieval appellation as the Belles Heures." Page 2 is a title page for the Introduction. It reads: "Introduction: The Belles Heures of Jean de France". These reverse italics in an italicized title indicate that the title of the work in question is Belles Heures, not Belles Heures of Jean de France. The first sentence of the Introduction reads: "One of the transcendent masterpieces of The Cloisters Collection, the Belles Heures of Jean de France, duc de Berry, evolved in the course...". Again he is telling us that the title is Belles Heures, not Belles Heures of Jean de France. But we're not really discussing the proper title of Belles Heures here. We're talking about Très Riches Heures. Husband's first mention of this work is on p. viii, the first page of his Preface. He thanks Emmanuelle Toulet at Chantilly "for allowing me to study the Très Riches Heures of the duc de Berry for many uninterrupted hours." Again, he is indicating that the title is Très Riches Heures, not Très Riches Heures du duc de Berry or Très Riches Heures of the duc de Berry. So I fail to see how this book supports using the longer title of either Belles Heures or Très Riches Heures. In fact, I find that it suggests just the opposite. --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I should have linked to WP:Tertiary when mentioning the tertiary sources. Regarding Harbison, as I mentioned, I made a very quick search on my hard drive and grabbed the first two sources (didn't count how many times the title was used in the source). Harbison is a good scholarly source for that period and I'm not surprised he used the full title in the caption - that how I've usually seen it. Full title the first time, short title on subsequent occurrences. Husband's subtitle is "The Limbourg Brothers and the Belles Heures of Jean de France, Duc de Berry", so it's fairly clear in the book what's being referred to. I'd defer to 's expertise, but would think our page should have the full title and should be consistent with Belles Heures of Jean de France, Duc de Berry and with all the illuminated manuscripts of the period such the Bedford Hours, etc. Anyway, I may not be around for the next few weeks, so won't have much more to contribute here. Victoria (tk) 23:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the italics in Harbison's caption clearly show he is using the short title, and, if you look a little more closely, Husband's use of reversed italics for Belles Heures in his italicized subtitle shows that he intends the short title, not the long one. Have a good trip! --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry" is used at first mention, in captions etc, by:
 * Edmond Pognon, Les Trés Riches Heures du Duc de Berry, Liber, 1987 (Pognon was chief curator at the BnF)
 * Otto Pächt, Book Illumination in the Middle Ages (trans fr German), 1986, Harvey Miller Publishers, London, ISBN 0199210608 (top German specialist)
 * "Très Riches Heures of Jean de Berry" in Thomas, Marcel; The Golden Age; Manuscript Painting at the Time of Jean, Duc de Berry, 1979, Chatto & Windus,
 * "Très Riches Heures of Jean Duke of Berry" in Harthan, John, The Book of Hours, 1977, Thomas Y Crowell Company, New York, - this has sections on 6 MS of Berry's, with him in their names, using this formula. It is clear that the italicization is for phrases in French, as other MS called eg the "London Hours" are not italicized, only the many such as "Petit Heures" etc.  You are I think misinterpreting quotes above such as "allowing me to study the Très Riches Heures of the duc de Berry for many uninterrupted hours" above. This is using a long title, part italicized because of the French. But others don't italicize at all. Johnbod (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That would certainly be consistent with Manion not italicizing it at all in her article in The Dictionary of Art. She may have decided not use the italics to help avoid confusion. It is certainly typical not to italicize French proper names in running text, so it seems a bit odd that italics were ever used for these names, if this is indeed the case. But of course, she never mentions the long version of the name, except in the titles in her bibliography. --Robert.Allen (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Book of Hours
I see this was also reverted. Margaret Manion seems to capitalize the term consistently as Book of Hours, at least in The Dictionary of Art. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well usage in the field varies, though capitalizing is far more common outside the specialized literature. Book of hours doesn't, and we should try to be consistent. A book of hours is not a specific text but a type of book, and we don't capitalize Missal, Hymn Book, Car Repair Manual or Novel in this way. If you want to change this I suggest you start with a discussion at Talk:Book of hours. Johnbod (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reasonable response. I don't feel strongly about this. Lowercase should be fine. --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Parchment or vellum?
An IP has stated that the "Les Très Riches Heures is crafted on rough, thick parchment, not vellum". I do not have Cazelles and Rathofer, which the body of the article cites for vellum. According to Margaret Manion in The Dictionary of Art it is on "very fine quality parchment". She does not specify vellum. I'm leaving the IP's edit stand, but it seems like we should try to make the article consistent with the lead. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no hard and fast difference, and libraries nowadays tend to call both "membrane" (rather wetly imo). I notice, on a quick search, the more scholarly sources mostly use "parchment" while eg Gardner's Art through the Ages, uses vellum. But plenty of RS use either. I doubt if it is "rough, thick" as these things go, but a difference between the hair and skin sides is evident in other Limbourg Bros. MSS, like the Belles Heures. See this passage (the book manages to use both terms for the same MS, see p 327). Johnbod (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Considering the time span of the work's creation, the folios may vary in the quality of the parchment. Husband does specifically state vellum is used for folios 64 (fig. 142, p. 299) and 156 (fig. 137, p. 297), the first ones I looked at, but I don't have the time right now to search further. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Authors will use either term. Those using "parchment" are essentially denying that "vellum" exists as a distinct category. If you accept that it does, then nearly all expensive MS like the TRH are made of it (except perhaps some very early Insular ones). Johnbod (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, Stockstad seems to be an art history textbook . The IP has also contributed to James Lick High School. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is - now the usual textbook for American introductory undergraduate courses on medieval art. Johnbod (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Accessibility
Camille 1990 does say the ms became inaccessible (possibly about the time the Faksimile-Verlag edition was published in 1984 – costing about "ten thousand dollars"). I thought Camille's comment regarding the motivation for it was perhaps somewhat cynical, and the evidence for his view, circumstantial. In any case, accessibility seems to have changed since 1990. Husband, certainly a well-placed scholar, states he gained access (probably not long before he published in 2008, altho he does not say exactly when). Perhaps we should mention he has seen it, since the French (esp. the Chantilly Library people) may have become a bit concerned about this issue. --Robert.Allen (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Janet Backhouse is quoted by Camille grumbling about it in January 1987. No doubt they take it out every now and then to check conservation, or shoot more photos. Refs/links re Husband? Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I was mainly referring to his implication that they wanted to reduce direct access to the ms to increase the value of the 1984 reproduction, not whether they actually did it. I'm sure he's probably right that access became highly restricted. In any case, we know that at least one scholar got to see it (very likely) since 1990. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It was interesting to me to see that a French Wikipedia editor was able to get digital copies from what seems to be the original manuscript from the RMN website that are higher resolution than the ones I have been able to find there. He uploaded (in 2011) copies of every page, including pics of the covers and spine. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Stirnemann & Rabel (The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 147, No. 1229 (Aug., 2005), pp. 534-538) mention a 2004 CD-ROM with these images, so I suppose since it is Commons:Category:Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry scan 2004, the images must actually be off the CD-ROM. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * JB - I own Husband's book and can look to see what's said there re seeing the mss in Chantilly. But not today if that's okay. Victoria (tk) 18:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I can see it in the Google preview here, but not all visitors to the site will get access. Sometimes depending on how much you have looked at the book, they reduce access. Husband thanks Emmanuelle Toulet at Chantilly "for allowing me to study the Très Riches Heures of the duc de Berry for many uninterrupted hours." It's on p viii. --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but he's the MMA curator. Depends who you are I imagine. Worth a footnote anyway. Johnbod (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. (Can MMA can also be the Museum of Modern Art? No, I guess that's MOMA.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Italics for titles of individual illuminations
The titles of individual illuminations are italicized in almost all the sources I have looked at. Usually these titles are in English, so we cannot say this use of italics is due to the phrase being in French. Although Manion does not italicize Tres Riches Heures, she does italicize the titles of the separate illustrations. I followed her lead, without thinking too much about it at the time, when I added the list of illuminations that were inserted as single leaves. I think we should italicze these titles in our article, since it seems to be the usual practice. --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Needless to say, these are not actual titles, but a descriptive phrase for the subjects of the images, as chosen by either an author, or any Wikipedian editor - and will vary greatly. Some should probably be capitalized, especially if using the usual name in art history for common religious subjects, but in general capitalizing them is taking them too seriously imo. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that most sources italicize them, and that's what counts, not our opinions on the subject. Which sources (in English) do not italicize them? --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I noticed that Bober does not italicize the title for Zodiac Man. Maybe some of the other books you mentioned don't either. However, besides Manion, Harbison, Husband, and Dückers & Roelofs all do. (PS - Are you experiencing problems with the server not responding? I sure am.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I don't have strong objections, although I don't think January etc should be italicized as titles. Some of the current "titles" are very home-made & should be changed. Johnbod (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ideally they should all come from a bona fide source, although I don't think we have to footnote them! --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually the months might look nice in italics. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Translation of title
I think the first paragraph should include a translation of the title, but I'm not sure of how you would translate it. The Very Rich Hours of the Duke of Berry? Kent Wang (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't the translation rather be "The Very Lavish Book of Hours of the Duke of Berry"?¨89.253.110.211 (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, rather better, but the "rich" one is referenced to a non-RS source. Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Footwear
In the Calendar illuminations for January, April, May and August the male aristocrats are shown without any footwear, whether indoors or outdoors, and even when wearing spurs. (Long dresses conceal the female aristocrats' feet.) This appears to have been a fashion among upper class men in the early 15th Century, at least in France. There are examples in other artworks from this period. That raises several questions about the practicality of this practice. Would it have been comfortable? And how could they avoid soiling the soles of their hose? Of course, they may have had concealed soft-leather soles attached to the feet of the hose, like some modern ballet slippers - the soles of the feet aren't shown. Interestingly, in Laurence Olivier's film of Shakespeare's "Henry V" (1944) - which drew on these illuminations for its costume designs - the matter was dealt with by simply giving the men anachronistic hard-leather shoes with heels. O Murr (talk) 07:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * They very probably also used Patten (shoe)s, but I seem to be seeing more shoes than you - eg on the spurred youth in January. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)