01-03-2016, 12:45 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-03-2016, 05:00 PM by Davidsch.
Edit Reason: (changed typo write -> writer)
)
rene i agree with you: saying it isn't this or that because it resembles more this and that doesn't help.
Also, it is my opinion after much study, that discussion what herbal looks like which herbal is somewhat useless.
Because, for example:
*herbals in general in the period of the VMS are drawn not nature-like
*herbals in de VMS are not nature-like
*herbals in similar MS have often names that are not latin, but slang or invented names
*herbals are always copied and then altered and then copied again
*coloring of the herbals is often done with colors "at hand"
What is more interesting to me:
from which MS did the writer copy the drawings ?
From there we can try to distillate the appropriate names applied.
Yes, you can say, prove that he copied them.
But the chances that most herbals have been copied are bigger, then that the writer made ALL herbal pictures himself !
Also, it is my opinion after much study, that discussion what herbal looks like which herbal is somewhat useless.
Because, for example:
*herbals in general in the period of the VMS are drawn not nature-like
*herbals in de VMS are not nature-like
*herbals in similar MS have often names that are not latin, but slang or invented names
*herbals are always copied and then altered and then copied again
*coloring of the herbals is often done with colors "at hand"
What is more interesting to me:
from which MS did the writer copy the drawings ?
From there we can try to distillate the appropriate names applied.
Yes, you can say, prove that he copied them.
But the chances that most herbals have been copied are bigger, then that the writer made ALL herbal pictures himself !