19-08-2017, 10:18 AM
(This post was last modified: 19-08-2017, 10:27 AM by Koen G.
Edit Reason: clarification
)
Hi Marco
I, in turn, disagree with your objections.
1) Emma was talking about following this method ourselves, so the fact that we don't have access to the artefact is a very real hindrance. Of course I do agree that we should be denied access to testing the VM at all costs
. But the limitation remains.
2) There is still significant disagreement about the illustrations, and what is great about the approach people like Emma favor is that they circumvent this problem by studying the language-as-language. But yes, I personally think success will lie in a label-and-image-based approach. Still, this is much, much more complex in the VM than with, say, an inscription found in a nobleman's tomb.
3) We know almost nothing about where the manuscript was made. Its contents are almost irrelevant to its place of production, since sources travel as well. Even within Europe, there would be a huge difference if it was made in Germany, England, Northern Italy, Sicily or Spain. And even if we knew the country, we still know nothing about the context. Some people seem to favor a lonely scribe in a mountain cabin, while others think of a monastic setting or a "secular" workshop.
Yes, there are indications, but this is again infinitely more complex than with an Etruscan inscription found in situ. I'm sure there are complex cases there as well, but there are plenty of inscriptions where the context is mostly clear.
Panofsky seems to have changed his mind about the manuscript based on the conviction that one of the plants was a sunflower and a German reading of the Mus Del marginalia. I have severe doubts about the sunflower, and German marginalia means that the manuscript passed through German speaking hands. His initial impression was a multi-cultural Spanish context.
And Touwaide and Toresella have done wonderful work in their own areas, but their statements about the VM have been vague, very careful or even in the negative about it belonging to known traditions. Do you really think they have provided sufficient argumentation to say that the VM has been made in x location?
I, in turn, disagree with your objections.
1) Emma was talking about following this method ourselves, so the fact that we don't have access to the artefact is a very real hindrance. Of course I do agree that we should be denied access to testing the VM at all costs
. But the limitation remains.2) There is still significant disagreement about the illustrations, and what is great about the approach people like Emma favor is that they circumvent this problem by studying the language-as-language. But yes, I personally think success will lie in a label-and-image-based approach. Still, this is much, much more complex in the VM than with, say, an inscription found in a nobleman's tomb.
3) We know almost nothing about where the manuscript was made. Its contents are almost irrelevant to its place of production, since sources travel as well. Even within Europe, there would be a huge difference if it was made in Germany, England, Northern Italy, Sicily or Spain. And even if we knew the country, we still know nothing about the context. Some people seem to favor a lonely scribe in a mountain cabin, while others think of a monastic setting or a "secular" workshop.
Yes, there are indications, but this is again infinitely more complex than with an Etruscan inscription found in situ. I'm sure there are complex cases there as well, but there are plenty of inscriptions where the context is mostly clear.
Panofsky seems to have changed his mind about the manuscript based on the conviction that one of the plants was a sunflower and a German reading of the Mus Del marginalia. I have severe doubts about the sunflower, and German marginalia means that the manuscript passed through German speaking hands. His initial impression was a multi-cultural Spanish context.
And Touwaide and Toresella have done wonderful work in their own areas, but their statements about the VM have been vague, very careful or even in the negative about it belonging to known traditions. Do you really think they have provided sufficient argumentation to say that the VM has been made in x location?