21-05-2017, 02:24 PM
(This post was last modified: 21-05-2017, 02:31 PM by Diane.
Edit Reason: add link
)
If the Vms botanical folios were a Latin herbal - which they're not IMO - and if frog pictures were generics - which they're not necessarily - then all pictures of all frogs with all plants would have similar meaning (significance). Which I don't think the case here.
So frog A in a Latin herbal may not be meant to convey the same as frog (B) carved in a misericord or frog © in a mural from Ephesus or frog (D) in the Voynich manuscript.
IMO the frog meant here is one that is renowed for its climbing to the heights of the 'peacock tree' ... where it sings.
But that's just my opinion, of course. Due mainly to first identifying the associated tree with (as you see) its 'peacock' -evoking root.
The frog in Latin bestiaries
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
So frog A in a Latin herbal may not be meant to convey the same as frog (B) carved in a misericord or frog © in a mural from Ephesus or frog (D) in the Voynich manuscript.
IMO the frog meant here is one that is renowed for its climbing to the heights of the 'peacock tree' ... where it sings.
But that's just my opinion, of course. Due mainly to first identifying the associated tree with (as you see) its 'peacock' -evoking root.
The frog in Latin bestiaries
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.