03-03-2017, 06:00 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-03-2017, 06:08 PM by Diane.
Edit Reason: clarity
)
Anton,
You say...
It was natural for people in the west during the early twentieth century to think that to be an 'important' object, a book or other artefact had to be made by or owned by some single 'important' person.
But while it is understandable how the notion arose, and why each generation just assumed it, I cannot see that there is anything about the content itself to justify an assumption that the content is the sole expression of some individual 'author's mind.
The style of drawing changes noticeably from section to section, and even within some of the diagrams - and when I say 'style' I don't mean just individual hand, but stylistics in the sense of details which embody certain customs, cultural attitudes and so forth.
Apart from the fact that we inherited the old habits from 1912-60, and the general notion that since no other Latin manuscript closely resembles it, the content should be the unique creation of a single mind... apart from that sort of argument... what is the evidence offered by the primary source that it is the work of one single 'author's mind and/or hand?
And if the content is actually a bunch of stuff, copied from more than one source by more than a couple of scribes, then it is fairly difficult to prove - perhaps even to justify positing - hypotheses about the 'author' or the 'artist' .. isn't it?
Or is it?
D
You say...
Quote:When the author has the need to align the stuff in the shape of a table, he does not fail to that explicitly, such as ...
It was natural for people in the west during the early twentieth century to think that to be an 'important' object, a book or other artefact had to be made by or owned by some single 'important' person.
But while it is understandable how the notion arose, and why each generation just assumed it, I cannot see that there is anything about the content itself to justify an assumption that the content is the sole expression of some individual 'author's mind.
The style of drawing changes noticeably from section to section, and even within some of the diagrams - and when I say 'style' I don't mean just individual hand, but stylistics in the sense of details which embody certain customs, cultural attitudes and so forth.
Apart from the fact that we inherited the old habits from 1912-60, and the general notion that since no other Latin manuscript closely resembles it, the content should be the unique creation of a single mind... apart from that sort of argument... what is the evidence offered by the primary source that it is the work of one single 'author's mind and/or hand?
And if the content is actually a bunch of stuff, copied from more than one source by more than a couple of scribes, then it is fairly difficult to prove - perhaps even to justify positing - hypotheses about the 'author' or the 'artist' .. isn't it?
Or is it?
D