Images in protective scrolls: drawings or miniatures?

[DariaElagina]

Dear all,

in this issue, I would like to clarify our definition of images found in protective scrolls. Commonly, they are represented by images of angels (with swords), ṭalsams, or sometimes by images of demons. We have two possibilities of classifying them, either as drawings or as miniatures. However, the definitions for these terms in the project do not correspond accurately to the images found in protective scrolls. Our definition for a miniature reads: "An independent illustration in colour that occupies the full-page or part of the equivalent space of one or more columns of text." Images in protective scrolls are neither independent (they always suppose to build a specific sequence with texts) nor designed as illustrations. Our definition for a drawing: "A monochrome or bichrome image that is not painted." Images in protective scroll might vary in execution. The same image in one manuscript might be colored, and in another one not. I would be happy if we could just document which is our conventional way to define images in protective scrolls. I personally always tend to describe them as "drawings". What do you think, @thea-m , @DenisNosnitsin1970 , @eu-genia , @vitagrazia81 , @SophiaD-M , @gnizla @MassimoVilla ?

[DenisNosnitsin1970]

There are a few debatable points in the definitions, or just things that can be questioned / clarified / made more understandable again, at least in my perception. The definition of "Drawing" is one of them (there is also a vague boundary between miniature that is not finished and a true drawing). "Independent" is used in a special sence as most of the miniatures in manuscripts do depend upon texts because they illustrate them in one way or another. But how to describe talismanic images - are they miniatures? Are their any examples of catalogues distinguishing between them?

[DariaElagina]

You are right, some clarification would definitely be helpful. In my understanding "independent" means that they might or might not be there. The text does not lose its function or meaning if no miniatures are present, which might be a choice of taste or money. Whereas the presence of talsams, as far as I understand, is something more essential, that can not be reduced to a decorative or illustrative function. The basic difficulty for me in the definitions is the mixture of formality and functionality. In the case of a miniature, what comes as first: the fact that it should be an illustration or the fact that it should be colored? If the decisive factor is its illustrative character then magic images are not miniatures. If the decisive factor is the presence of color, they might be classified like that (though I am personally against this interpretation).

In the catalogue of Strelcyn (British Library), a very common "magical picture" is used. Once he uses "magical drawings" (p. 138), but since the manuscript is not digitized, there is no way to understand what the difference is. Describing other manuscripts, of no protective/magical nature, he uses "drawings" (for monochrome units) and "miniatures". Mercier in "Art that Heals" uses quite often the term "talisman", but never a miniature. I will check also further catalogues once in the office.

[gnizla]

I agree with the points made by @DenisNosnitsin1970 there is not perfect distinction between a drawing and a miniature, but a distinction is needed and that will inevitably have to do with polychromy and colouring which are germane to a miniature and in antithesis with what a drawing is.

Personally, from an encoding point of view, I think it makes sense to treat the images on scrolls just like those in manuscripts: if they are monochrome, define them as drawings, if they are polychrome, define them as miniatures. If you want to add additional information you could then optionally create an art theme for each of those motifs that recurr on the scrolls and which are not attested in other manuscripts (e.g. Net of Solomon) and you can use existing art themes (e.g. Angel) to refer to existing art themes.

I can see why the term "indipendent" might cause some confusion, but a miniature is never indipendent from a text so I don't think it is possible to draw a marked distinction between how images function on scrolls and manuscripts (which is not to say that there are no such differences). In any case, if I recall correctly, indipendent was added to distinguish miniatures from onramental borders and frames in a discussion we had over a year ago. Denis and Dorothea where in that conversation if I recall correctly.

[eu-genia]

I think the issue is not really drawing/miniature (I agree with Jacopo, would go by colouring), the confusion comes from the structure of the TEI msdesc which puts the text at the centre and decoration as an add-on and the fact that while most codices have indeed the text as the main content, magic scrolls or leporellos have the images as part of the main content. But we have to use the structure we have.

[DariaElagina]

ok, if we want to distinguish between a miniature and a drawing by colouring, I think we should do following steps:

• highlight the difference in definitions. By now we have several oppositions in our definitions ("independent illustration"/"image"; definition of size/no definition of size), which in my opinion cause some problems and make the classification not straightforward. Alternatively, we could of course just document this decision somewhere in the guidelines. But I think that some clarifications of definitions would be profitable anyway.
• we have to decide also which term do we want to use in case if no information on coloring is provided by the catalogue, which is very common in scroll descriptions.

[gnizla]

• I don't think that the size of an image, if I understood your intended meaning, is a valuable criteria for the type of distinction we are talking about (as interesting as it may be from a "scribal" perspective).

• When drawing on catalogues for pieces that are not digitized, especially older ones, I believe it is implicit that in everything one does one makes some judgment calls (and not just for images), I would opt for referring to the images as miniatures in the case of doubt, as ones with colour of some kind (at times just two colours) are far more common than ones without, but that's just my two cents!

Thanks!

[DariaElagina]

Thank you, @gnizla ! These are very helpful remarks! Do I understand you correctly that you would suggest treating bichrome images also as miniatures? The current definitions treat them as "drawings".

[gnizla]

Dear @DariaElagina Daria, thanks for query.

From my point of view, once you draw the distinction based on colouring, then yes you could include bichrome drawings in the "miniature" category. Of course, this is a type of image that sits right across the boundary of our discussion for the fact that they are produced with the inks that are used for scribing manuscripts rather than being coloured, so to speak. So, this could go either way.

If bichrome images have not been treated as miniatures in encoding done so far (and if that encoding is substantial in volume) then it may be easier to retain the current approach even if it generates some conceptual discrepancies. But, yes, purely from a logical standpoint, I would suggest categorizing them as miniatures as it creates a simpler and more clear approach towards dividing miniatures and drawings.

[DariaElagina]

Thank you, @gnizla ! I think we have now to decide which strategy we will follow. It would be nice to hear the opinion of the others. I have also a different question concerning the word "independent", if I understand correctly, this criterion should also be included in the definition of a drawing, right? Concerning this term you wrote as follows:

I can see why the term "indipendent" might cause some confusion, but a miniature is never indipendent from a text so I don't think it is possible to draw a marked distinction between how images function on scrolls and manuscripts (which is not to say that there are no such differences). In any case, if I recall correctly, indipendent was added to distinguish miniatures from onramental borders and frames in a discussion we had over a year ago. Denis and Dorothea where in that conversation if I recall correctly.

Would it be possible to rather add the term "aniconic" to the definitions of frames, bands, and other ornamental elements? (as applied in the COMSt Handbook, p. 165)

[gnizla]

Just to clarify, @DariaElagina I believe I did not introduce the term "indipendent" so I am not advocating to retain it.

Aniconic is a useful term, but some bands have little heads in them, so not always true.

Sure, good to hear other opinions!

[DenisNosnitsin1970]

Some points: if it is desirable to distinguish the images of scrolls as a special group, maybe the term "talismanic" maybe used, e.g. "talismanic miniature" (for all types, cp. the catalogues of V. Six) or "talismanic drawing" ("magical" is clear but perhaps can be found questionable by some people), they sometimes occur in the manuscripts as well. I would also say that if the drawing is made of one colour (e.g. black) or two colour outlines (black and red, it may be also yellow, rarely), and the areas inside a not covered with paints, it is not a miniature but a (bicrome) drawing. "Independent" is clear for me now, it is not so important but it does allow multiple interpretations, probably it should be avoided in the guidelines.

[eu-genia]

I was wondering - we might have instances of completely "independent" images though, especially if they were added as a separate layer. maybe the term could be reserved for such cases.

[DenisNosnitsin1970]

If you mean miniatures on rejected leaves, added into a volume purely by chance, yes, but just the word "independent" has for me a different semantics - I wonder if we can say that such a miniature is "independent" as the miniature is not agent and does not decide, in such a form it is rather "stray" as "rejected leaves" are. Also, whoever paints a miniature, usually has a purpose.

[DariaElagina]

Thank you all for the valuable input!

1. I would be against introducing a special category for talismanic images because, in fact, it might be even more confusing. Categorization of an image as a talismanic one is 1. not straightforward; 2. again adds another layer (functionality) to our definitions, which imho we should avoid. If one is completely sure that this is a talismanic image, it can be added into the description. I just want to document which is the best way to encode (define) them, since our definitions, as they are, are too restrictive in my opinion.
2. My intention is to formulate definitions in a way that would allow for the disambiguation of a miniature and a drawing. If not all miniatures are "independent" it can not be a decisive criterion. And if all miniatures are independent and this delimits them from decorative elements (frames and ornamental bands), the same should be applicable to drawings. Because we have agreed that the difference is in colouring. Alternatively, we can introduce a third category, which would be used for anything which is neither a drawing nor a miniature :) But if we keep two terms, the disambiguation should be clearly supported by definitions.
3. @DenisNosnitsin1970 , how would you then encode those images for which no information on colouring is available, as miniatures or as drawings? And could you, please, elaborate on the term "independent"?

[gnizla]

1. I would also stay away from "Talismanic" as a special category (which does not mean, as Daria says, that it cannot be used in description).
2. I find "indipendent" confusing even based on this conversation alone. I would likewise do away with bicrome drawing. I think two categories are enough and more would be confusing. To be clear I am not disagreeing with @DenisNosnitsin1970 and one could easily debate whether it is more appropriate to define images with two colours as drawings or miniatures without coming to a conclusion. There is no right or wrong answer to this question, but, I would suggest categorizing these as miniatures to avoid any possible ambiguities: i.e. 1 colur = drawings 2+ colours = miniature.

[DenisNosnitsin1970]

Daria, I tend to treat them as miniatures by default, unless smth other is indicated. We can always add "cert=", or transcribe what exactly the catalogue says. As to "independent", it was not my idea, I assume it may have been somehow inspired, directly or indirectly, by a definition like this, MINIATURE - "An independent illustration, as opposed to a scene incorporated into another element of the decorative scheme such as a BORDER or INITIAL...)." (https://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/GlossM.asp), makes sense, but not so much for the Ethiopian context. I see the points, just to get it right, how would you classify depictions in the images appended, miniatures or drawings? 2 colours but no paints (I meant this type, now I do not find a good example of a narrative picture drawn with two colours, but no paints).

[DariaElagina]

Dear @DenisNosnitsin1970 , my classification of those pictures would definitely depend on the system (Guidelines) in which I have to describe them. In the existing system of definitions (BM), these pictures are clearly drawings for me. If we will decide to consider all pictures with at least two colors miniatures, I would encode them as miniatures. That would be a little strange for me, but only because I have another understanding of a miniature based on other experiences. However, if we document that any bichrome or polychrome picture is in the frames of our project treated as a miniature, it would be fine. In the end, it is just some type of convention. (I personally think that they are sigils, and I would put that into desc.)

On the other hand, taking into consideration the existing definition of a miniature in the project, I have also difficulties with the classification of such pictures as miniatures despite them being polychrome:

The reason is that in the definition we have miniatures should be "illustrations" and of a special size (An independent illustration in colour that occupies the full-page or part of the equivalent space of one or more columns of text). But this picture, as far as I understand, does not illustrate the text (that is it does not explain, clarify, illuminate, visually represent, or merely decorate), it protects and heals, functions as a "seal" for the protective text, does not allow its power to fade away, and so on... I might overcomplicate things, but at least it is a legitimate way of thinking since the Ethiopic culture ascribes to them this special function. (And again, drawing can also be an illustration, but does not have this aspect in the definition, which is correct in my opinion, but highlights the "illustrative" aspect of a miniature as opposition to a drawing.)

However, if we define a miniature as "any (bichrome or) polychrome image", there would be no problem. Speaking in the language of mathematic sets, now we have the following situation: Our definitions, if they are strictly followed, especially that of a miniature, enclose only a part of the images which exist in Ethiopic manuscripts. That means that we have a grey zone, in which everyone decides how to encode this or that image according to one's own judgment, formalists from the formal point of view, functionalists from the functional, and so on...