Talk:Speculum Humanae Salvationis

message: The word "bestselling" found in the lead seems out of place. Do we really have sales records for manuscripts? Does such a thing even make sense? Srnec 03:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have surviving numbers of MS, and numbers of editions for blockbooks and incunabula, which are all extremely high for this and some works like Biblia pauperum, so I think it is. The blockbooks were designed for a popular market (in relative terms) and were quite cheap. It is a very common mistake to underestimate the volume of printed matter around in the C15, and the penetration, especially of woodcuts, throughout the population, which at least in parts of Europe was very high.  If you look at the articles like List of best-selling books, you will see there are in fact no overall (international) sales figures that stand up to a moments scrutiny even for very recent books, but the term is still used. Johnbod 03:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. My biggest objection was to the concept of manuscripts being sold as printed books. Srnec 04:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok; the authorities are also clear that by this period many illuminated MS, but not all, were produced for stock and then sold through dealers, rather than being individually commissioned. Johnbod 14:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but this claim is nonsense, whoever these 'authorities' are, and the word 'bestselling' suggesting such a nonsense is inadequate. Rather replace it with 'successful'. Also delete "part of the genre of encyclopedic speculum literature". The SHS had nothing in common and nothing to do with "encyclopedic speculum literature" (e.g. Vincent of Beauvais). 2003:C9:2747:E400:5499:C95:AD9B:7A03 (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Bestselling?

message: I'm all for bizzare interpretations of medieval pictures, but surely this needs a citation. Fennessy 19:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here to comment on the same thing - why mention it at all?  Let's stick in a totally random non-related thing as a comparison just because it looks a little bit like it?  How non-encylopedic os that!  As Darwin described the type fossil the medieval authors can have had no knowledge of the macrauwhatnot, so it's totally irrelevant.  I'm removing it from the caption. 81.129.128.73 19:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: just a bit of main page madness.... Johnbod 21:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: macrauchenia?

message: "The work originated between 1309, as a reference to the Pope being at Avignon indicates, and 1324, the date on two copies".
There is no such reference "to the Pope being at Avignon". The passage in question refers to the joy of the saints in Limbus at the sight of Christ in his Descent ("Quando Christus limbum intravit, Sancti divinitatem viderunt / Et omne gaudium coeli statim ibidem habuerunt. / Dicitur enim quod, ubi est Papa, ibi est Romana Curia: / Sic ubi erat deitas, ibi erant coeli gaudia", SHS 28,51-54, ed. Lutz/Perdizet 1907). The proverbial saying "ubi (est) papa, ibi (est) Roma" was particularly popular at the time when the popes resided at Avignon, and it has therefore been believed by some to provide a terminus ante quem non for the dating of the SHS, but the saying goes back to the 13th century and seems to have been coined by Hostiensis in his gloss to the phrasing 'limina apostolorum': "et dic apostolorum, scilicet Petri et Pauli, id est Curiam romanam, nam ibi papa, ubi Roma" (see Michele Maccarone, "Ubi est papa, ibi est Roma", in: Aus Kirche und Reich... Festschrift für Friedrich Kempf, Sigmaringen 1983, pp. 371-382). The same passage has been adduced also in support of the possible authorship of Ludolf of Saxony who in his Vita Jesu Christi uses this saying in a similar context for glossing the words addressed by Christ on the cross to the good thief: "hodie eris mecum, quod est esse in paradiso, quia ubi est Christus, qui est paradisus, ibi est paradisus; sicut ubicumque est Papa, ibi dicitur esse Romana curia" ). The parallel is interesting, but not sufficiently strong for providing an earliest possible date or evidence for the authorship.
The "date on two copies" has been found in two copies of the late 14th century, in a passage interpolated between the fist and the second verse of the prologue: "Incipit proemium cujusdam novae compilationis / <editae sub anno Domini MCCC et XXIV°, nomen vero autoris humilitate siletur> / Cujus nomen et titulus est Speculum humanae salvationis". It was accepted by Lutz and Perdrizet and by what seems to be a majority of later scholars as being sufficiently reliable for determining 1324 as the year of completion, but the question has remained controversial, because the iconographic evidence of a Toletan manuscript pointed out first by Gerhard Schmidt (1974) and consolidated by Evelyn Silber (1980, 1983) seems to suggest that the 'Italian' (as opposed to German/French) branch of tradition goes back to manuscripts illustrated already "during the early fourteenth century" (Silber) at Bologna. Even earlier dates have beem considered by some for the Latin text which may well have circulated in a first period without illustrations. 2003:C9:2747:E400:5499:C95:AD9B:7A03 (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating