Talk:Melencolia I

The article notes "The unbalanced scale despite lack of contained substance". The scale looks balanced to me. Also, you can't see what's in the bottom of the tray. Is this referenced anywhere other than wikipedia?

I agree: the scale is balanced. It might appear unbalanced to someone unfamiliar with the conventions of linear perspective, but if you look at at the engraving closely you'll notice that the balance indicator is pointing straight up.--BWOgilvie (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

notes: The following can be verified with exhaustive tests, proofed:

For all 880 magic squares of order four [1] beside the raws, columns and diagonals the following will sum to the magic constant

1. the sum of the four corners will equal
2. the sum of the inner four cells will equal to the
3. the two cells left of the four inner cells together with the two cells right of the four inner cells
4. the two cells above of the four inner cells together with the two cells below of the four inner cells

This means that if we count the 2x2 subsquares obtaind with wrap around of raws and colums all will have at least 4 such subsquares which sum to the magic constant. The distribution is like this:

120 squares have only 4 such 2x2 subsquares

520 squares have 8 such 2x2 subsquares

192 squares have 12 such 2x2 subsquares

48 squares have 16 such 2x2 subsquares

Last are called most-perfect magic squares.

→ Associative Magic Square
→ How many magic squares are there?

Dürers square is an associative magic square. The binary representation of this square is as follows:

You can see that each of the colors occur only two times in each row, each column and in each of the diagonals. If we look at the definition of an associative magic square we can see that for every cell a all colors differ in the symmetrical cell of cell a:

a) changing "a div 8 = 1 with "a mod 2 = 1" and vice versa would give the square:

15	 2	 8	 5
 4	 9	 3	14
 1	12	 6	11
10	 7	13	 0

If we "change" only the weights for the binary representation we will have 4! permutations and the values "0" and "15" will be always fixed.

b) changing "a mod 2 = 1 with "a mod 2 = 0" and vice versa would give the square:

14	 3	 0	13
 5	 8	11	 6
 9	 4	 7	10
 2	15	12	 1

We can see that doing this there are 16 times more possibilities. Together we would have 4!*16 squares. The number considering the Frénicle standard form is 48. (It can be seen easily that all 8 transitions - rotations and transpositions are represented in the "pattern"). Gangleri | Th | T 21:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

It's a gnomon meant to attract the influences of Jupiter as a cure for the Saturnian melancholy that afflicts those lost in contemplation.Inijones (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Albrecht Dürer's engraving Melancholia I (originally known by Dürer as Melencolia I) is an allegorical depiction of the symptoms of melancholy, now better known as depression.

what does it mean : "known by Durer as melencolia"? Researchers apparently agree that Durer was aware that such a spelling is neither german nor latin. Also "allegorical depiction of symptoms": perhaps it would be better to leave that to the care of the medical profession and to say something about symbols.

My redaction: Albrecht Durer's engraving known as Melancholia I is an allegorical composition which supports various interpretations. The title comes from the deviantly spelled word 'melencolia' appearing within the engarving itself. The most obvious interpretation takes the image to be about the depressive or melancholy state and accordingly explains various elements of the picture. Among them most conspicuous are:...

Added a link to D. Finkelstein's impressive exegesis. www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/DurerCode050524.pdf al 09:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

- I agree with most of your points here, but Melancholy is originally Greek (melan=black, choly=bile I think), although it has an "a" in Greek too. The OED lists by my count 16 English spellings for "melancholy" and "deviant" is I think an inappropriate description for any spelling in any European language in 1514 - no dictionaries, no spellcheck. I have changed it to "unusual" Johnbod 03:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't we use the name Dürer gave his own work? Aleta 04:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I tend to think so (see just above), but it might be arguable the other is now the commonest spelling in EnglishJohnbod

An incorrect spelling even if it is a common spelling, is still an incorrect spelling —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.198.240.254 (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC).Reply

"Unusual" and "modern" spelling in what language? There was a more or less standard transliteration of greek words and european languages, which used the latin alphabet, tended to respected it. Durer's spelling does not fit anywhere and he certainly knew it. 'Unusual' does not seem appropriate to qualify something which only a simplistic view could take to be an error. Perhaps this should be made clear. Mentioning Finkelstein's hypothesis that it is an anagarm would not be wiki-correct. 91.92.179.156 16:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is not an incorrect spelling; it is an archaic spelling. There is a big difference. The title is Melencolia I. That's what Dürer named it and that's what it even says on the engraving. I requested a move at WP:RM because it looks silly right now.

Reginmund 18:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Hebrew version contains an illustration of the famous Magic Square which appears in the engraving. The illustration was done by me (he.User:Noon is my User Page), and is released to the Public Domain. --85.250.24.90 11:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Who asked for a fricking Hebrew version? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.198.240.254 (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC).Reply

you're a fricking idiot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inijones (talk • contribs) 03:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

This article has been renamed from Melancholia I to Melencolia I as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 17:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

The article says the piece was lost in a fire. But it's a print, surely there must be other copies remaining? Can this please be clarified?--24.86.252.26 20:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

correct - now removed. There are a fairly large number of copies, though few really early/good ones. Johnbod 21:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

• "It has been the subject of more modern interpretation than almost any other image in art."

This is (practically) unverifiable.

• "It should be noted that reproduction usually makes the image seem darker...and in particular affects the facial expression of the female figure, which is rather more cheerful than in most reproductions."

I don't think 'cheerful' is a neutral term. Also, this really needs a citation as, I recall, some interpretations based on the humours understand the dark face to be intentional.

• "Instead it seems more likely that the "I" refers to the first of the three types of melancholia defined by the German humanist writer Cornelius Agrippa. In this type, Melencholia Imaginativa, which he held artists to be subject to, 'imagination' predominates over 'mind' or 'reason'...the most obvious interpretation takes the image to be about the depressive or melancholy state."

It seems contradictory to side with the 'Melencolia Imaginative' interpretation and then class melancholy and depression as the same. Camarthist (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Added an old reference to strengthen the dubious claim.

There is a good article on Melancholy that could help to smooth the problem.

Imho there should be a section on Interpretations; either by authors (eg Panofky, Doorly, Finkelstein..) or by themes (alchemical, kabbalistic, Jungian...), with brief summaries and refs(links); the one given currently should go, of course.

Perhaps something should be said about the composition in general i.e. elements on left/right high/low etc, and also a fuller list of elements.

al (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is the claw hammer on the left noteable? the page on hammers say so but its not mentioned.(82.3.40.49 (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC))Reply

I haven't been able to find anything about anyone noticing 'The All-Seeing Eye' that you can see when you look at the picture when its not in its full size. If you look in the upper left hand corner of the picture when its at a smaller size you can see the pyramid shape or possibly even the shape of one of the sides of the 'truncated rhombohedron' (like the shape of the rock right below)made with the 'rainbow' & the 'comet' or 'beacon' in the picture, the chimera carrying the flag with the title "Melencolia I" written on it is the eye. & if you even flip the picture counter-clockwise you can see the pyramid again in the same spot except for now the 'comet' or 'beacon' is the tip of the pyramid casting a ray of light downward towards the bottom of the pyramid. has this been noticed before??Lissalee06 (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

This may be of interest, see image under Wikipedia article,
Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen.
And, Ananke (mythology) i.e. Lady Necessity/Necessitas.

Also, from The Guide for the Perplexed by Maimonides -

" Thus the sages reveal to the aware that the imaginative faculty is also called an angel,and the mind is called a cherub. How beautiful this will appear to the sophisticated mind - and how disturbing (or confusing ) to the primitive."

At first I was thinking the child is central to this, but these are winged beings.
So, there's a lot of background to this in mythology etc. I was thinking along the lines of
'deus ex machina', ( like building a temple or so) but that's a different concept.

See also Myth of Er SignedJohnsonL623 (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The Durer solid reminds me of a medieval or Renaissance shield, especially painted pavises like crossbowmen used.

Also, Durer's mother had just died in 1513, so could the female figure of Melencolia have represented her spirit?

Miklamar (talk) 07:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)miklamarReply

For reference,possible related ideas drawn upon- Metaphor of the sun, Empyrean, Nemesis (mythology) - "Nemesis , winged balancer of life , dark-faced goddess, daughter of justice". Fortuna"Truly,when in the place of work,idleness,in place of the spirit of measure and equity,caprice and pride invade, fortune is changed as with morality" , Consolation of philosophy , Tyche (the ladder?) "Fortune favours the bold" but Melencolia is burdened by doubt? time? tools available yet unused? Tools of reason or fortunes wheel,Rota Fortunae blocking the metaphorical light of imagination or Plato's idea of God/ The Ultimate Good, also see David Hume- "Acting from our experience is how we should operate". Mural crown, Rostrata , Destiny, Pythagoras, Plato — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnsonL623 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Timaeus (dialogue) , Cardinal Virtues , Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa#Famous sayings  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnsonL623 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply 

Then there's - "Imagination is more important than knowledge" quote of Einstein. SignedJohnsonL623 (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Has no one ever wondered why the "female" has a manly body shape ? I mean just look at the body as a whole, that's a man's body, in dress-like clothing. Is there any official source that can confirm and back up the perception of this being a female ? //KungenMartin 9 May 2012 at 06:38 p.m (CEST) —Preceding undated comment added 16:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC).Reply

I'm no sure if the engraving dimensions are 31 cm × 26 cm (12 in × 10 in) as is claimed here and in other wikis, because the relation H:W doesn't agree with the image size in pixels neither with other wikis that have different dimensions.

I have looking for other sources and I find that maybe the actual dimensions are 9-1/2 x 7-3/8 in (24 x 18.5 cm) [[2]].

--Tecsie (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Other source in Germany claims that actual dimensions are 24 x 18.8 cm. This source is the Staatliche Kunsthalle (State Art Gallery) and maybe they have the work in their collection[[3]] --Tecsie (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

removed some indian miniature made after Dolor by Raphael Sadeler I; see please http://www.metmuseum.org/Collections/search-the-collections/90070050?rpp=20&pg=1&ft=Dolor+Raphael+Sadeler&pos=191.92.179.172 (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

removed an irrelevant and speculative item: In 2009, Professor Laurence Eaves, a physicist, pointed out in a video about magic squares that the sum of the numbers in the square (4 x 34 = 136) plus the only other number referenced in the image (1, from the title) equals 137, which is approximately equal to 1/α (alpha, the fine-structure constant) which itself relates the elementary charge (of a proton) squared divided by the quantum (Planck constant multiplied by the speed of light). This is 7.2973525698 ×10−3 = 1/137.035999074. He asserts that this is purely coincidence, implying no knowledge of modern, advanced physics by Dürer. (ref. as www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGvyeuDT2Do&NR=1&feature=endscreen )91.92.179.172 (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

A proper removal I think. A diligent person can tease out a coincidence of this type from any given set of numbers or letters. Ewulp (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Strangely missing but so obvious that it ought to be mentioned in the article is the autobiographical content. The two winged figures, being marked as angels, represent the artist's soul. The adult is crowned in laurels, as was Dürer, a celebrated artist in his lifetime. Likewise, the child is a diligent student, as was Dürer. The asterism has been identified by Ursula Marvin, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge MA, as the Ensisheim meteorite of November 7,1492. As was discovered in 1960, Dürer painted the explosion that occurred over Upper Alsace on the back of a small wooden panel with Saint Jerome penitent on the front (Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge UK). Dürer, age 21, was in Basel at the time, 38 km to the SSE of Ensisheim, close to the SE to NW flight path (Chr. Cokinos) and apparently saw the skyburst. The year 1514 is the year his mother died age 63, an event which greatly troubled him, as he himself wrote (Portrait of the Artist's Mother at the Age of 63). His own age of 43 that year is the number 34 of the magic square with figures reversed. hgwb (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Put this information with details added into the article. Presumably the existence of painting on the back of the panel with St Jerome penitent on the front had been known for a long time without being identified as Dürer's rendition of what he himself had witnessed in 1492, the explosion of the meteorite over Ensisheim. While stating explicitly that the identification as such in 1960 is credited to Ursula Marvin, a reference for this has yet to be found (could be supplied by herself?). hgwb (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why the article does not say anything about location of this engraving? Is it exposed in the museum or kept in private collection? Maxal (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The middle two columns contains numbers with the mere difference of one (3|2, 10|11, 6|7, 15|14). This is peculiar and possibly unique to the magic square arrangement that contains the middle 1514, which links the left and right middle columns via coincidence with the year of the engraving. These pairs of numbers also contains "1011", something that in binary represents the number 11. This row is also horizontally symmetrical ignoring the 5: 1, 0, 1, 1, and 8 (2^3) can be flipped without changing their reading, which is possibly why the 5 is flipped also. Given the inclusion of 1011, the magic square might be a predictive representation of tape memory, wherein four punchholes would offer 4 bits of information (providing the maximum number of 15), or possibly emphasizing 8 bits of information (providing a maximum number of 255), since the two middle columns of four numbers are linked. Dürer may be predicting the use of binary in computers of the future. The five might be flipped to represent the "flipped bits" that occurs in the Ones' complement binary system. The flipped bits of five (0101) is ten (1010). In 4-bit Two's complement, 1010 is negative six. This may explain the impression of a six behind the flipped five. In this way, Durer may have predicted the use of Two's complement in modern computing. Additionally, making each number zero-based by subtracting one from each number then converting to binary gives a mirrored image with flipped bits[4]. This research is public domain. -- 24.255.249.157 (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

If you overlap the head of the unicorn in The Unicorn is Found (from The Hunt of the Unicorn tapestries) with the head of the dog found in Melancolia I, the compass in Melancolia I is roughly at the same vicinity of the deer's antlers. [5] It is worth noting both artworks have an inexplicably reversed or upside-down letter or alphabet: The "5" in Durer's Magic Squares and the "E" in the Unicorn Tapestry's initials. This research is public domain. 24.255.255.94 (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Are we going to tackle Modern Painters? Try here, searching on Albert. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I read that last night, thanks. I haven't seen any modern mention of it, but I still lack plenty of sources of commentary. This has been difficult enough without trying to summarize Ruskin's prose! Outriggr (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Although much has been written, much is in German. There are surprisingly few journal articles in English that are directly relevant. Panofsky says plenty in English, and others review him in English; but they don't seem to review much else. Weighting therefore becomes a problem. English books on Durer must have more to say, but I've reached the end of my access and interest. Further English sources:

• Whitney Davis, A General Theory of Visual Culture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011). "One can hardly be unsympathetic to the aims of this book, and it offers some exemplary readings: its comparisons of Panofsky, Walter Benjamin, and Aby Warburg on Dürer's Melencolia I, for instance". (Review. Matthew Rampley; "Rethinking Visual Theory", Oxford Art Journal, Volume 35, Issue 3, 1 December 2012, Pages 473–476, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxartj/kcs029 )

I would like to get into the lead that the word "melencolia" didn't mean then what it means now. Also as are we placing too much emphasis on the word - Dürer signed and dated the etching, but certainly did not name it. Deffering to Mr. Riggr the Well Read and Wise. Ceoil the Mad (talk) 02:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply