13-03-2017, 01:42 PM
(This post was last modified: 13-03-2017, 03:05 PM by Diane.
Edit Reason: unwanted paragraph markers
)
By pure coincidence, on Thursday I happened to add a publication to the ninja library that illustrates an asparagus plant.
( I'd greatly appreciate members remembering to add the date of any manuscript they propose as comparison for imagery in the Vms.)
I'm not sure I understand just what point is being argued in this thread. Is it that pictures with a flat or nearly-flat surface above the roots are to be interpreted as pictures of the asparagus plant?
Or is it that pictures showing thick roots and a more-or-less flat surface are asparagus, or that those with a perfectly flat surface and any sort of tangled roots are asparagus?
Which of these are being asserted comparisons for those Latin manuscripts?
On 6v - dense, tangled-looking roots.
On f.36r - thick tangled-looking roots, this time with a level bole.
on f. 39r - not just level surface but a surface actually shown shadowed - so one intended to be read as being as smooth as a mirror or as shallow water.
f. 43r - a double layer of tangled roots, interweaving, above which a series of plants having 'harlequin'-effect foliage
f. 46r. - filament-like roots and soil shown again a bit hairy looking.
Since none show a spear of asparagus, which are and aren't supposed to be "like" asparagus, and why?
What I would really like explained - since now almost four generations later, people are still trying to provide evidence post-hoc for the idea - is why in the absence of any solid preliminary study and assessment, it was ever asserted that the botanical folios are related to the Latin herbal genre?.
Ninety years and we still lack any informed and well-researched historical study which offers reasonable argument and evidence for the view that the persons who made the botanical folios: their first enunciation and final version in our manuscript *intended* to create a series of medicinal plant portraits, much less that those persons had interest in no plants save those of the standard Latin European herbal tradition.
Ninety years and we're still relying on inferences being drawn by readers faced with two images in entirely different style, and which are only similar in one small detail, and even then... not so much.
But I have a copy of Alain Touwaide's original essay for Mondragone on the way. Perhaps that will change my mind.
( I'd greatly appreciate members remembering to add the date of any manuscript they propose as comparison for imagery in the Vms.)
I'm not sure I understand just what point is being argued in this thread. Is it that pictures with a flat or nearly-flat surface above the roots are to be interpreted as pictures of the asparagus plant?
Or is it that pictures showing thick roots and a more-or-less flat surface are asparagus, or that those with a perfectly flat surface and any sort of tangled roots are asparagus?
Which of these are being asserted comparisons for those Latin manuscripts?
On 6v - dense, tangled-looking roots.
On f.36r - thick tangled-looking roots, this time with a level bole.
on f. 39r - not just level surface but a surface actually shown shadowed - so one intended to be read as being as smooth as a mirror or as shallow water.
f. 43r - a double layer of tangled roots, interweaving, above which a series of plants having 'harlequin'-effect foliage
f. 46r. - filament-like roots and soil shown again a bit hairy looking.
Since none show a spear of asparagus, which are and aren't supposed to be "like" asparagus, and why?
What I would really like explained - since now almost four generations later, people are still trying to provide evidence post-hoc for the idea - is why in the absence of any solid preliminary study and assessment, it was ever asserted that the botanical folios are related to the Latin herbal genre?.
Ninety years and we still lack any informed and well-researched historical study which offers reasonable argument and evidence for the view that the persons who made the botanical folios: their first enunciation and final version in our manuscript *intended* to create a series of medicinal plant portraits, much less that those persons had interest in no plants save those of the standard Latin European herbal tradition.
Ninety years and we're still relying on inferences being drawn by readers faced with two images in entirely different style, and which are only similar in one small detail, and even then... not so much.
But I have a copy of Alain Touwaide's original essay for Mondragone on the way. Perhaps that will change my mind.