# Talk:Freydal

Really interesting topic - I may be able to take on the GAC review later, but I do not have time right now. There are at least a few handbooks/encyclopedias/edited collections cited in which you cite the editor as the author rather than citing the particular author and chapter (as you currently do with the Larry Silver source, for instance). This should be fixed. Routledge Revivals: Medieval Germany (2001): An Encyclopedia and The Cambridge History of German Literature jump out at me, but there may be others. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - I’ll take a look at some point. DeCausa (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Freydal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 02:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Lead

It is the most extensive visual record of late medieval tournaments and court masquerades that exists. — Is the part about this being the most extensive record of medieval tournaments anywhere in the body? I do see the part about it being the most extensive record of masquerades.
It’s based on this sentence in the ‘Illuminated Manuscript Tournament Book’ section: “Other tournament books exist, but Freydal is the largest from the late Middle Ages[5] and is considered the best executed; it is also the only one to show spectacular falls.[9]” DeCausa (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Creation and history

Maximilian appears to have begun planning Freydal (a name derived from Freyd-alb, meaning "white joyful young man") in 1502 — This sentence could probably be split in two: one about the date, one about the name.
Done. DeCausa (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Could "mummeries" be linked to mummers' play?
No, I don’t believe so. I had looked at this - while there’s clearly an etymological and to some extant a substantive connection they are different things. In fact, we lack an article on this - had thought about doing one. Masque and Masquerade ball skirt near it but neither are exactly this. DeCausa (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
What is "laid paper"?
Hand-made ribbed paper - I’ve added a wikilink to the article on it. DeCausa (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
The remaining painting has been missing since at least 1600. — Any further details?
No, I don’t think anything more is known about what happened to it. DeCausa (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
A sixth woodcut has been attributed to Lucas Cranach the Elder. — So were there five woodcuts, or six?
The way I read the sources is that 5 is the generally accepted number i.e. confirmed. There is this one source that refers to this 6th one and uses the phrase “has been attributed to” Cranach. I take it to mean it’s not definite like the others. DeCausa (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Got it, that makes sense. This appears as if it may be the source of the attribution. Perhaps it is worth saying "at least five of the illustrations were trial printed", which makes the discussion of the sixth less unexpected. It's odd, though; even Dodgson later (in 1926) discusses only the Dürer woodblocks.
Content

Each is hosted by one of the finest courts in the land and comprises two different types of jousting; a foot combat; and a masquerade ball — I edited this sentence to make clear (as it seemed to me) that the "two different types" means two types of jousting, in addition to a foot combat, not one type of jousting and one foot combat. Just want to confirm that this is correct as now worded.
Yes, that’s correct. Thanks for the edit. DeCausa (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Illuminated manuscript tournament book

Could this be retitled "Illustrations", or is the longer title necessary to distinguish from the sketches etc.?
Illuminated manuscript has a specific meaning and does distinguish it from the sketches. I would prefer to keep it. DeCausa (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Is there a set number of illustrations for each of the 64 tournaments (it seems like there might be exactly four each)?
I couldn’t find a source that explicitly says that but I agree you’d think it would be 4 each. I didn’t want to put that in without an explicit source for fear of WP:OR! DeCausa (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Maximilian claimed to have invented this type of joust. — Claimed in this work, or at some other point?
I assume claimed elsewhere as the source doesn’t say Freydal claimed it. But it’s not explicit in the source where he claimed it. DeCausa (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
From my count, seven of the eleven sub-types of jousts are discussed. Is there a reason the other four aren't mentioned, even in a footnote?
Only that there the only ones I could find named. I’ve based that part mainly on Terjanian (2019) and for some reason there are the only ones named there. The new Krause reproduction of the tournament book probably has them named - but that’s not available online yet (and I wasn’t going to spend £150 buying it!) DeCausa (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Overall

DeCausa, this is a really interesting, and well done, article. The one thing I was surprised to not see was a section on more modern analysis of Freydal; the article covers what it is, what is shows, and what it says, but other than a few snippets here and there (e.g., "The Freydal illustrations constitute the most extensive pictorial record of these late medieval court masquerades"), it omits any scholarly analysis of the work. Surely some of the more recent sources include some of this? --Usernameunique (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@Usernameunique:, thanks very much - and thanks for your work on this. I’ve responded on the specific points above - let me know if anything further is needed on them. With regard to your last general point, I’ll have a look around and see what I can find. It might take me a couple of days. DeCausa (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good, DeCausa. I've added one response, and one additional thought, above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
@Usernameunique: I’ve created a short ‘Significance’ section which hopefully addresses this a little more. To be honest, it’s quite difficult to find much more on this other than variations of ‘the most extensive record of jousting’. I suspect it’s only attracted much modern scholarly attention in the last decade - so modern commentary is relatively limited. Which would, in itself, be a point - but I can’t find a source saying that! Let me know what you think. DeCausa (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Usernameunique, I’ve now added some political significance to that section as well. DeCausa (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, DeCausa, that looks great. Passing this now. It would be interesting to see this article at FAC sometime, although that would probably take finding the new Krause book—and given that most libraries aren't lending at the moment, that may take some months. It strikes me that there are some areas in which further depth would take this article the extra mile. One area is the 11 types of jousts, commented upon above. Another would be to list each of the 255/6 illustrations, with descriptions; Ceilings of the Natural History Museum, London is perhaps worth looking at in that regard, although a companion article (e.g., "List of illustrations from Freidall") could also work. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
@Usernameunique: thanks and agree with your comments. Thanks for all your work and diligence on this! DeCausa (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Here I clarify my position a bit.
From reading some of his works on Maximilian, I do see that Jan-Dirk Müller's perception of Maximilian is that of a ruler who tried to do many things at the same time (and the scholar seems to adopt the Austrian approach that the major goal of Maximilian's chief political undertakings was building the greatness of the House of Austria/Habsburg) and that he tended to fail politically, and thus relied on arts in general (Freydal in this case) to compensate. 
This belongs to an older approach, although English-speaking art scholars are likely still more familiar with it.
The more recent approach tends to present an effective ruler (although he did not succeed in all his undertakings, certainly) who left considerable legacies to both his dynasty and the Empire, or in Klaus Albrecht Schröder's words, in his time he was already the "mightiest monarch of Christianity" (and still he wanted more) Schröder
.
Here Joachim Whaley, in reviewing Larry Silver's work, also comments on this problem (gaps of perception between art historians and political historians regarding this particular matter). Whaley on Silver

Prof.Peter Schmidt of University of Hamburg summarizes these positions as such:

Maximilian ist eine schillernde Figur. In der Rezeption wurde er fast durchweg als Fürst an einer Zeitenwende gesehen – allerdings unter verschiedenen Vorzeichen: Entweder als der „letzte Ritter“, eine Figur mit anachronistischen Zügen, oder (eine jüngere Sicht) als ein medienbewusster Fürst, der ein effizientes Herrschafts- und Repräsentationssystem unter konsequenter Anwendung innovativer
Kommunikationsstrukturen etablierte.
or

Maximilian is a dazzling figure. In reception, he has almost always been seen as a prince at a turning point in history - although under different omens: either as the "last knight", a figure with anachronistic traits, or (a more recent view) as a media-conscious prince who established an efficient system of rulership and representation with the consistent application of innovative communication structures.
Certainly, artworks and "artworlds" presided over by Maximilian or originating from his court aimed at many purposes. To create a connection with things he aspired to gain but did not able to do it (yet), yes. To defend older cultural values that he was attached to personally while aggressively pushing a modernizing agenda as a ruler, yes (Silver seems to lean towards this trend lately Propaganda, memoria, pleasure, technical functions etc 
If one wants to discuss the matter in details, the topic might go far beyond Freydal. Yet if we use a (certainly respectable) scholar who belongs to the older trend here, we should avoid making his position look even more extreme than what it looks like in his article. Deamonpen (talk) 04:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

This article is about Freydal. If there are alternative views for his motivation then that should be represented per WP:DUE. But Mueller's work shouldn't be misrepresented to do this. DeCausa (talk) 09:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
See the latest reply of mine in the section Mueller passage. Also, if an author uses an overall controversial interpretation of the wider context to explain a specific matter, it is totally justifiable to at least briefly mention that this interpretation of the wider context is controversial. For example, if someone writes in the Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor that "Because 'Holy Roman Emperor' (Kaiser) was a symbolic title that did not bring real authority, Charles V did not have much power in Germany.", it is totally justifiable to add that the first part of this sentence is contradicted by many historians, even if "Whether Holy Roman Emperors had real power or not" is a matter that should be discussed at length in the Holy Roman Emperor article. This is about WP:NEUTRAL in general-Deamonpen (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Deamonpen: regarding this. The main point is that the sentence is almost incomprehensible. But also, it's a strange mix of WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE and stating more than Mueller actually claims. Please discuss here rather than reverting per WP:BRD. DeCausa (talk) 07:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Please see my section above first.
This is what Müller actually writes:
This is the tenor of all Maximilian’s self-portrayals: his distinction from all others. With this he anticipated absolutism. in which the ruler is the embodiment of sacral authority. In this style the court literati, too, speak of the adoratio of the divus Maximilianus. Majesty is a quasi-religious arcanum, and it is not only the person of the ruler that is made sacral, but his entire dynasty, the house of Austria, the noblest lineage in Christendom. By means of genealogical research, reaching back to the biblical forefathers, Maximilian’s court historiographers tried to prove that the house of Austria united all noble blood since the creation of the world. The ultimate focal point of Maximilian’s 'court' and his government was the idea of the superiority of the House of Austria as represented by himself; however, this claim only became reality after his death, thanks to the marriage alliances entered into during his reign. Maximilian tried to compensate for his factual powerlessness and the lack of centralisation of his court by displaying his image and the symbols and claims of his rule as often and in many places as possible.
So how does my interpretation state more than what Müller claims? As far as I understand, based on the context, Müller is talking about the fact Maximilian could not raise the House of Austria to the highest place in Christendom in his own lifetime, not that he was a powerless monarch in general. As for WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE, I believe a balance should be maintained between paying attention to possible copyrights problems (and other problems associated with close paraphrasing) and possible distorting of source materials.
My opinion is that to avoid making the articles too long, one should not cut what should not been cut. If you are determined to keep your sentence, I will insert the authors I have mentioned above and possibly others.- Deamonpen (talk) 07:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
In response:
The way you've presented the quote misrepresents Mueller. You've merged the first few lines of one paragraph into the end of the previous paragraph creating a linkage between two concepts that's not there in the original. The sentence that begins "Maximilian tried to compensate for his factual powerlessness..." is a separate paragraph. What comes before the text you quote is a long discussion on how Maximilian boosted his image and impression of power generally, and not just in relation to the role of his House. Mueller in that following paragraph simply says the issues were powerlessness and lack of cenralization. But you artificially add in "regarding the matter of elevating the house of Austria over all other houses during his own lifetime". That is just one item out of many in the previous paragraphs where Mueller says Maxcimilian is enhancing his image. Mueller in the follow on paragraph does not limit the powerlessness in that way and you are artificially adding that in.
The English is terrible. The syntax is so bad it's almost unintelligible. Even if the concept were acceptable it would need to be split out into at least 2 possibly 3 sentences.
You take specific phrases from the Mueller text. For example, "factual powerlessness" is a direct copy and sticks out because as an idiom it's an unusual turn of phrase. I think glueing too much of Mueller's phrasing together has contributed to the unintellibility as well as being too much of a direct copy.
DeCausa (talk) 09:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Here I provide the link to that article, so that others might see and help to decide on this matter:
Müller's article, pg.307

The previous paragraph/sentences provide the context for "Maximilian's factual powerlessness" that he talks about right after that. These are not unrelated concepts. In the mean time, I will add other authors to this section.
The "factual" word that the author (that you are trying to equate with "actual") is one indicator of the relationship between these passages itself. It's "factual" powerlessness because it is about the fact that he was trying to elevate the House of Austria above all others. Deamonpen (talk) 09:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Firstly, the English language has multiple words and phrases meaning the same thing. There is no need to copy. Secondly, as I said before, there are other issues besides the role of his House that are discussed before coming to "factual powerlessness"  - you've artificially plucked out only one. I'll read with interest what you insert and, in particular, whether WP:SYNTH is involved. DeCausa (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
"Factual", in this case, cannot be equated with "actual". And in my experience, when there are debates among Wikipedia users about the meaning of the term like this, it is best not to artificially change the wording of the author. Keep the original, and place it in quotation marks if needed.
Secondly, if you think that the passages/sentences here are not related, there will be no reason to place Müller here. The first paragraph (the part that mentions Maximilian trying to raise the status of the House of Austria) is the only place Freydal is mentioned. You already connected the two paragraphs when you mentioned Freydal and placed it in this article. There is no sentence in the second paragraph that says "he used all his woodcut/artistic/propaganda projects" (or "projects including Freydal") to compensate for his powerlessness - that is totally your projection, or WP:SYNTH, as you put it. Deamonpen (talk) 09:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
That's exactly the point. Where he refers to Freydal he is not discussing the point about the role of the House. That comes subsequently. And what do you think is the differencde between factual and actual. Are you really sayin g the English language does not have a synonym for factual? Because that's obviously untrue. DeCausa (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Your sentence currently reads "As part of what he called his ‘memorial projects’ or Gedechtnus, Maximilian I used literary and visual works such as Freydal to model and enhance his public image". But the only place Müller mentions Freydal is the paragraph he discusses the role of the House of Austria, not the paragraph he talks about Maximilian's powerlessness and the need to compensate for it. So if Freydal and powerlessness are related, there must be connection between these two paragraphs. Let's remember that Maximilian presided over many projects, not only Freydal. That he compensated for powerlessness by projecting his image does not mean that a specific project, in this case, Freydal, was part of this effort (this logic is the same as "The Inquisition persecuted innocent people. One of Gilles de Rais's judges was an Inquisitor, thus Gilles de Rais was innocent" - Matei Cazacu. Except if the two paragraphs are related).
"Factual":
factual
 in British English
 (ˈfæktʃʊəl IPA Pronunciation Guide)
 ADJECTIVE
 1. of, relating to, or characterized by facts
 2. of the nature of fact; real; Virtual
 factual
 in American English
 (ˈfæktʃuːəl)
 ADJECTIVE
 1. of or pertaining to facts; concerning facts
 factual accuracy
 2.  based on or restricted to facts
 a factual report

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/factual#:~:text=(f%C3%A6kt%CA%83u%C9%99l%20),giving%20theories%20or%20personal%20interpretations.

"Actual" is a possible replacement for "factual". They do not always equate to each other. -Deamonpen (talk) 09:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
By the way, in the very same paragraph powerlessness and the need to compensate by projecting his image is mentioned, there is also this sentence:
He made use ot'the print medium. by which he could be present within the Empire in diverse ways and in many places, in mandates and memoranda, war reports and proclamations, portraits, arms and insignia of royalty. In his territories he added durable forms of representation, such as monuments, pictures and sculptures. His coat of arms could be found everywhere, on churches, castles, secular buildings, on fumiture and other items of everyday use. This demonstrated the power that he actually exercised as well as the power that he claimed.
So if he was powerless as a ruler overall (and not only in the matter of raising the House of Austria to the premiere status or centralizing the government), why can it be the case that these images also "demonstrated the power that he actually exercised"? -Deamonpen (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
It's not literally he had no power that's in issue. It's whether the issue is only about the role of his House which is what you are claiming and which Mueller hasn't said. DeCausa (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
It is an issue, because you are determined to insert the matter of powerlessness into this article. Maximilian could not be an overall powerless ruler and had "power he actually exercised" at the same time. The only way Müller's paragraph makes sense is if Maximilian had power in some areas but was powerless in others. You can only explain this if you connect the two paragraphs. In the second paragraph, according to Müller, he used arts both to compensate for his powerlessness and demonstrate the powers he actually exercised. This second paragraph does not mention Freydal at all. Freydal is only mentioned in the first paragraph, which discusses the fact Maximilian was not able to raise the House of Austria to Europe's premiere place. If the two paragraphs are not related, it is unclear whether Freydal is a project intended to compensate for his powerlessness or to demonstrate "the power that he actually exercised". It can be either case.
By the way, Müller's article is not primarily about Freydal, but only mentions Freydal (twice in the whole article, and without details: in what way does Freydal demonstrates Maximilian's powerlessness or the power that he actually exercises?) in a wider context (that of Maximilian's intentions and practices concerning his art/propaganda/Gedechtnus projects in general). I would prefer the matter of "Maximilian using these projects to compensate for his powerlessness or to demonstrate his power" to be discussed in the article Cultural depictions of Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor much more.- Deamonpen (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
I recopied the two paragraphs in full here (relevant parts are emboldened by me)
First paragraph

Second paragraph:
 
Link to page 307 of Müller's article- Deamonpen (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why we have two threads for this. I'm going to ignore the thread above and only answer here. Also, can you please sort out your indenting. Your post is very difficult to read at the moment. Mueller uses the word "powerlessness" without qualification. I don't know what else to say to you. You are adding interpretations into the text which is not supported by it. This issue needs to be covered in this article. I think the better solution is that you add on a sentence or two to say what ou think other historians alternative view is. DeCausa (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Please notice that I opened the other section before you created this one. Also I have tried to provide details to other users in my newer posts only because you seemed to think I deliberately manipulated how Müller's sentences looked. At this point I find it frustrating to explain to you, too. Anyway, your interpretation of "powerlessness" as "overall powerlessness" is obviously wrong, not only because of the sentence "This demonstrated the power that he actually exercised as well as the power that he claimed". Jan-Dirk Müller himself also writes this in another place:
Service to the Emperor (who was the most powerful prince in the southeast and southwest of the Empire) often opened up access to lucrative ecclesiastical benefices: bishoprics, prebends, canonries, etc.
Jan-Dirk Müller, pg 300 Deamonpen (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, how about changing make up for his actual powerlessness to make up for the limitations to his actual power. DeCausa (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
That is likely better.
Generally, I'm fine with cultural/art historians (even those with some "dated" aspects) making statements about political facts, as long as there is some moderation/point of balance. Historians who say that Maximilian was successful/powerful will not deny that in some cases he tried to compensate for (or cover) failures/problematic aspects of his rule either. -Deamonpen (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
I've added the proposed amendment as you seem ok with it. DeCausa (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)