De Arte Luctandi - Florius (Fiore) c.1410

[admin]

http://images.bnf.fr/jsp/index.jsp?cont ... ccueil.jsp

Type 11269 in the search field and click Recherche to find the images.

[ChristianR.Mosca]

Thank you so much! My Fiore collection is complete!

[Michael Chidester]

Wiktenauer Article: http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Florius_de_Arte_Luctandi_(MS_Latin_11269)

[admin]

Is anyone aware of any educated thinking on where and when this manuscript was originally illuminated?

I have found myself looking at a lot of manuscript illuminations recently, particularly dating to between 1400 and 1430, which this manuscript obviously fits into. What I am undecided about is whether it was illuminated in Italy or not. Certain details of the armour are typically Italian, for example the mail sleeves over the vambraces at the shoulders, but I am less sure about the flowing extensions on the jupons - these have parallels in Germany, France, Flanders and England, but are quite unusual in Italian art. Any thoughts?

[Motley]

Maybe Mike will chime in here, he suggested that Fiore may have been in Paris in around 1420 a while ago on G+. Wild speculation, if that is the case and it is currently in Paris maybe it could have been done then? Do we know much about the history of the Ms.?

[Michael Chidester]

Well, trouble is that fencing historiography is a bitch and it's hard to be sure of anything written more than a few decades ago. It's entirely possible that someone noticed the presence of the Florius in Paris and then invented a wild story about Fiore teaching there and whatnot based on that single fact. People are currently looking for the Novati article that allegedly makes the original claim, but we won't know for sure unless we can locate the archival records that Novati allegedly cites.

Weighing against the possibility that Fiore made it while he was in Paris is the fact that the art in the manuscript has several errors that would have been caught and corrected (presumably) had he personally been involved.

[Motley]

Well, trouble is that fencing historiography is a bitch and it's hard to be sure of anything written more than a few decades ago. It's entirely possible that someone noticed the presence of the Florius in Paris and then invented a wild story about Fiore teaching there and whatnot based on that single fact. People are currently looking for the Novati article that allegedly makes the original claim, but we won't know for sure unless we can locate the archival records that Novati allegedly cites.

Weighing against the possibility that Fiore made it while he was in Paris is the fact that the art in the manuscript has several errors that would have been caught and corrected (presumably) had he personally been involved.

Thanks for the clarification. I had not realised the Paris link was so tenuous. Basically it comes down to Novati making a comment but no sources for that are currently known?

[Michael Chidester]

Well, we have some Norwegian fencer paraphrasing Novati (no citation, just a year), and so we have no idea what Novati actually wrote about it or what his evidence was. It's slightly more substantial than hearsay, but in a time when Jacopo Gelli declares confidently that Meyer was a student of Marozzo (despite the fact that Marozzo was dead by the time Meyer was a youth) while Francisco Moreno declares just as confidently that he was a student of Jerónimo Sánchez de Carranza (despite the fact that Carranza was the same age as Meyer and was still developing his Destreza when Meyer died), it's hard to know who to trust.

[admin]

I think it is significant that 'Florius' is in Latin. I also think that it is significantly not the same artistic style as any of the other versions, and shows somewhat different equipment (perhaps with a French or German influence, especially with those flowing jupons), despite being of approximately the same age, in my opinion. Then again, the mail sleeves over the upper vambrace is a typically Italian thing and is rare in French manuscripts (though not unknown). Perhaps this does suggest an Italian artist trying to make the figures look more 'French' with the jupons.
I doubt that it is later than 1420.

[Bulot]

HD scans online : http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8 ... 269.langFR

[Michael Chidester]

Ever since the Le Jeu scans went online I've been checking back every few days for these, but looks like you beat me to it. Great find!

[Bulot]

TBH, I knew these scans were on the verge of being published since september.

[Michael Chidester]

Any notion of when Lovino will come online?

[Michael Chidester]

Titre : [Florius, de arte luctandi].
Date d'édition : 1401-1500
Type : manuscrit
Langue : Latin
Format : 44 ff. - Peintures. - 255 × 195 mm. - Reliure parchemin moucheté
Droits : domaine public
Identifiant : ark:/12148/btv1b8514426f
Source : Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des manuscrits, Latin 11269
Description :[/b] Figure sur la liste récapitulative d'acquisitions du 10 mars 1756; cf. B.n.F., département des Manuscrits, Archives Ancien Régime 65, registre des acquisitions du département des Manuscrits 1667-1758, f. 353 "Florius de arte luctandi cum fig. depictis ms. sur velin in 4"; — ex-libris gravé "Du cabinet des livres de Pontchartrain" (contreplat sup.)
Provenance : bnf.fr

Could someone who speaks French possibly contact the BnF and verify that they are not claiming copyright on these scans?

[Bulot]

Nah, they aren't.

Well... Technically it's a legal grey zone, but I'm sure you know that well... copyright on digital reproductions of public domain work is very disputable.

Anyway, in the case of the Florius, the manuscript is public domain, but the PDF is subject to the same Non-commercial licence as the rest of Gallica.