u/15thcenturynoble

https://preview.redd.it/kg1hnn8mvryg1.png?width=526&format=png&auto=webp&s=ecc2a748688b52aa378264ee0b3650f1e8e9db34

(images in comments)

I once stumbled upon a manuscript in the library of Charles V of France. Originally, I didn't understand what these miniatures represented as I was only focused on studying the art of the period and fell in love with this late 14th century international gothic masterpiece made in Paris. But now that I know a bit more about the history of philosophy and have gotten better at reading medieval iconography, I rediscovered this piece having come to appreciate it even more than before. Here is my analysis:

Politeca et economica was a 14th century book written by one of the greatest if not the greatest French medieval scientists/philosophers, Nicole Oresome. He sat at the bleeding edge of medieval intellectual culture having been born in the early 14th century. Despite a comparatively poor background, he managed to get into the university of Paris and became a master in the liberal arts. He wrote revolutionary works on many subjects including geometry and astronomy and astronomy. The manuscript in question is on politics and economics and was commissioned by king Charles V of France himself (This specific manuscript being made in 1376). A work that, if I’m not mistaken, is more of a summary of consensus than a source of new ideas. though Oresome did add his own thoughts into the work.

The first 2 miniatures of this manuscript are not only great examples of the international gothic style during the late 14th century, but also beautifully encapsulate the general views medieval academia and the broader social elite held regarding politics at the time. These views were heavily influenced by Aristotle's politics categorising political systems based on two axis: Who rules? and Why?. A more elaborate way of seeing things than the more modern approach which only cares about who is ruling. Each page features three compartments illustrating each political system. Three good and Three bad.

The compartments in the first page show bad versions of the political systems with the first being the tyranny. Where only one person rules for his own benefit (image 7). The idea of punishment and violence is central to this compartment as well as the other two. People are hacked and skinned showing the cruelty of the ruler. The leader(s) is/are shown wearing armour and weapons symbolising the thirst for power and control. The monarch is wearing the highest rank of plate armour of the time but also boasts gilded ornaments and a money pouch : Clear references to wealth and greed. All of this topped with the golden crown depict the ruler as a king : a bad king.

Similarly, we have the compartment representing democracy (image 4). Unlike the first compartment, this one features multiple rulers; the entire lower class. They are armed but less so than the tyrant bearing less plate, kettle hats, and less sophisticated military overgarments. The punishments are also less brutal featuring a pillory and whacking (public humiliation) rather than torture. Why is democracy depicted so negatively? Because according to Aristotelian thought, democracy is a system run by the lowest of the people (the majority of the population). The illiterate and ignorant. They rule without proper knowledge and with selfish intentions : The passengers kicking out the pilot. Keep in mind the reality of pre-modern society, where the common folk were really illiterate and didn't have any where near as much access to culture and knowledge as the elite. Furthermore, notice how everyone is pointing figurines? This shows authority and aggression as the sole source of structure.

So what did scholars generally see as a good government? There were three and they are all depicted in the second page. The good counterpart to democracy was the polity, a system where commoners held power (image 6). But only the ones capable of it. Wealthy city dwellers including merchants, lawmen, doctors, philosophers, notaries, merchants, and even master craftsmen. The mood of this compartment is strikingly different from the last three : The scene features discussion and debate. Something cherished by the clergy and academia in the medieval period, unlike what most like to believe today. The rulers are shown wearing regular clothes, in this case civilian attire from varying backgrounds implying a less violent and equal state of affairs. Looking at their hands, open palms represent discussion and leniency while pointed figures show authority. A balanced and stable order. A similar idea is the aristocracy (not to be confused with the negative oligarchy) where multiple rulers from the upper classes rule society for the good of the people. The rulers in that compartment are shown wearing clerical/scholarly garments. Others wear noble outfits and hold eagles. Clear representations of the clergy and the nobility (image 5).

But another system was even more prised than the polity and aristocracy : The royalty. A state ruled by a single man. Akin to the tyranny. But this man is in service to the law and the people (image 3). We see the king, unarmed and wearing everyday regal attire, surrounded by discussing noblemen and clerics. Far from the first miniature, here the king is seen with open palms. Clearly negotiating with the other courtiers who get a say. This king is less martial, less violent, and more thoughtful and counselled. Interestingly, the throne is sculpted with lion heads whereas the tyrant's throne has four dog heads looking around. Maybe there was an intended heraldic meaning behind this choice as lions represented magnanimity and nobility while the dogs represented (in this case expected and commanded) loyalty and servility.

This peace represented the political and royal ideal of the medieval period : A man who holds the highest authority but with wisdom and consideration of his subjects.

These two miniatures are a fascinating window into medieval society. It illustrates how ideas as far back as the 4th century bc influenced medieval academia and life. This can be seen by learning more traditional historical sources. For instance, many kings following the model of the ideal king. Charlemagne especially was both a prominent military figure but also an immense cultural one. He was an avid fan of religion and philosophy/science having brought to his court important Italian and insular minds leading to the promotion of intellectualism among nobles. He also brought the Carolingian renaissance, a set of reforms in writing/book culture, education, music, philosophy, and classical knowledge after efforts to erase it in the 6th and 7th centuries. Phillipe Augustus is also a good example of such a king with his political and infrastructural reforms.

Today, we see kings like the tyrant is represented in image 7. But back then, despite the knowledge of democracy and more democratic (in reality aristocratic and polity-like) systems existing in varying locations, kings were seen as, and expected to conform to the ideal ruler seen in image 3.

Hi, I recently finished designing a coat of arms and I'd like to have a painted version of it as well as a seal featuring it.

I want the coat of arms to be painted in the same way (or just a similar look) as they are painted in late medieval french and Flemish armorials (traité de blazon, armorial équestre de la toison d'or etc...).

It's a very particular style as the charges are both stylised in this soft and "blochy" way if you've looked at them.

The animal charges are also pretty small but I'd like them to be recognisable.

For the seal, I want it to look like historical seals with the shield in the center, a text ring, and details in between like gothic tracery and / or background patterns. It's for a 3cm wide seal I'll have made by a craftsman

Is anyone willing to accept such a commission? And do you know anyone who might?